Legal/scotus thread

Garmel said:
[tw]1805977804812460316[/tw]
Click to expand...

I still just don’t see how the courts can possibly rule to govern social media moderation decisions. While I’m sympathetic to the argument that the federal government giving recommendations to these companies can be heavy handed, I would think the point where the courts could actually step in would be if the government took action that punished (or purported to punish) social media companies for not following those recommendations.

Edited to add: having read the text, I completely agree with the Court’s ruling on standing. They seem to be taking the same approach to this that I would. It’s actually reasonably similar to why I don’t think Trump should be held criminally liable for anything that happened 1/6.
 
Last edited:
I believe docs have recently come out that there were threats made by the federal government to repeal section 230 if they didn’t cooperate

See Berenson and his case vs Biden.
 
Not a fan of the consequences of the ruling in Snyder vs. United States. A “gratuity” given after the fact to an elected official just feels like another form of a hidden bribe.
 
Tapate50 said:
I believe docs have recently come out that there were threats made by the federal government to repeal section 230 if they didn’t cooperate

See Berenson and his case vs Biden.
Click to expand...

Do you happen to have a link? Not just being a dick here, I thought anything brought by Berenson regarding Section 230 was turned away.
 
mqt said:
I still just don’t see how the courts can possibly rule to govern social media moderation decisions. While I’m sympathetic to the argument that the federal government giving recommendations to these companies can be heavy handed, I would think the point where the courts could actually step in would be if the government took action that punished (or purported to punish) social media companies for not following those recommendations.

Edited to add: having read the text, I completely agree with the Court’s ruling on standing. They seem to be taking the same approach to this that I would. It’s actually reasonably similar to why I don’t think Trump should be held criminally liable for anything that happened 1/6.
Click to expand...

Allowing the Government the ability to use a social media company as a proxy to silence dissenters. What could go wrong?
 
Tapate50 said:
https://x.com/AlexBerenson/status/1805325255990460927
Click to expand...

I’m actually quite willing to believe the federal government (under either party) would do some heavy-handed **** in its dealings with the public. But this article leaves me quite nonplussed:

Although he had officially left the Biden Administration weeks before, Slavitt’s email signature also contained his White House email address, asking that “Government Email” be sent there.
Click to expand...

So a guy who didn’t work for the Biden Administration set up a meeting between a Pfizer guy who served under Trump and Twitter? And this equates to the government officially threatening Twitter with repealing Section 230?
 
Carp said:
Allowing the Government the ability to use a social media company as a proxy to silence dissenters. What could go wrong?
Click to expand...

But that’s just not what happened, legally speaking. The social media companies made moderation decisions that silenced some of their users, just as they have done on many other topics under both parties. I think there’s a great discussion to be had about the government quietly communicating with companies, but I don’t think it’s one for the courts to have.
 
Georgia county's "first African-American female" probate judge removed from office for "systemic incompetence"

And also hitting a cop.
 
This case was about as important as the free speech case. The unelected bureaucrats can no longer do what they wish.

[tw]1806695679873466704[/tw]
 
Garmel said:
This case was about as important as the free speech case. The unelected bureaucrats can no longer do what they wish.

[tw]1806695679873466704[/tw]
Click to expand...

I don’t believe in governmental agencies having outsized power, but I’m not sure I love that power shifting to a different group of mostly unelected federal judges that haven’t spent their lives working in the fields they’re regulating. Hopefully Congress is prepared for the extra administrative work that’s going to come with this decision, as the enforcement framework and secondary considerations for laws will need to be much more clearly defined. That’s fine by me, but we’ll see if Congress steps up to the plate accordingly.
 
mqt said:
I don’t believe in governmental agencies having outsized power, but I’m not sure I love that power shifting to a different group of mostly unelected federal judges that haven’t spent their lives working in the fields they’re regulating. Hopefully Congress is prepared for the extra administrative work that’s going to come with this decision, as the enforcement framework and secondary considerations for laws will need to be much more clearly defined. That’s fine by me, but we’ll see if Congress steps up to the plate accordingly.
Click to expand...

The thing is Chevron gave bureaucrats leeway to adjudicate "statutory ambiguity." I don't think bureaucrats and even experts within the bureaucracy have any special ability to do this. That's the role of the judiciary. It is not as if this ruling takes away the ability of federal agencies to use their expertise and discretion in appropriate areas.
 
Last edited:
Gee, Nsacpi. I wonder why I keep criticizing the DC legal system. They took a statute that had nothing to do with protestors in order to give a felony charge to trespassers.

[tw]1806702602282733904[/tw]
 
Garmel said:
Gee, Nsacpi. I wonder why I keep criticizing the DC legal system. They took a statute that had nothing to do with protestors in order to give a felony charge to trespassers.

[tw]1806702602282733904[/tw]
Click to expand...

He knows, he's just parroting the company line.
 
Btw, I can't stress how important overturning the Chevron doctrine is. Lawmaking will be done by congress again and not by out of control federal agencies. This is a great day for freedom.
 
Garmel said:
Gee, Nsacpi. I wonder why I keep criticizing the DC legal system. They took a statute that had nothing to do with protestors in order to give a felony charge to trespassers.

[tw]1806702602282733904[/tw]
Click to expand...

I agree with this SCOTUS decision as well. I think that particular charge is an overly broad interpretation of the statute involved. In other words a "stretch" by the prosecutors.

I've stated with respect to another case that the charges by Bragg are also a stretch and might not survive appeal. The two cases are different and imo both a fairly close call. But I think a reasonable case can be made in both that the prosecutors are applying the statutes inappropriately.
 
nsacpi said:
The thing is Chevron gave bureaucrats leeway to adjudicate "statutory ambiguity." I don't think bureaucrats and even experts within the bureaucracy have any special ability to do this. That's the role of the judiciary. It is not as if this ruling takes away the ability of federal agencies to use their expertise and discretion in appropriate areas.
Click to expand...

Oh, I’m not a doom and gloom guy on Chevron being overturned. But unless Congress does more to define the rules behind enacted statutes, we’re still largely counting on unelected officials to fill in the gaps. Sometimes the courts are the right group, sometimes the agencies are. So I just reject the framing by some that we’re righting some horrible wrong.
 
mqt said:
Oh, I’m not a doom and gloom guy on Chevron being overturned. But unless Congress does more to define the rules behind enacted statutes, we’re still largely counting on unelected officials to fill in the gaps. Sometimes the courts are the right group, sometimes the agencies are. So I just reject the framing by some that we’re righting some horrible wrong.
Click to expand...

Sure, Congress should do its job properly and write laws clearly. If they don't like how the courts interpret ambiguous provisions, it is their prerogative to write a new law that clears up the ambiguities. Congress still has the ability to craft laws that give discretion to agencies based upon their expertise. I don't think under our system the agencies should be trying to guess what Congress meant in cases where there is ambiguity. That's for the courts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top