SCOTUS sides with BIDEN in censorship case to prevent ‘grave harm’



The Supreme Court has ruled that the Biden administration may coordinate with social media companies to censor viewpoints it deems dangerous.

“We all know the Biden regime is not going to censor leftists,” Sara Gonzales says, frustrated by the ruling.

This decision from Murthy v. Missouri saw state attorneys general who accused government officials of working with social media companies under the guise of combating misinformation and disinformation. The AGs argued that officials suppressed discussions on Hunter Biden’s laptop, COVID-19 origins, and vaccine efficacy.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had sided with the plaintiffs on the grounds of the First Amendment.

The Justice Department then argued that the temporary ban of this “public private partnership” would cause irreparable harm because it may prevent the federal government from working with social media companies to prevent “grave harm” to the American people and the democratic process.

SCOTUS indirectly agreed with the Justice Department by reversing the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision. Only Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch dissented.

They claimed that a “review of extensive government social media communications is outside of the Court’s scope,” that “allegations of past censorship are not enough to prove future censorship,” and that “injuries claimed by plaintiffs are indirect and anticipatory.”

The timing couldn’t be worse for conservatives.

“This is not really the decision that you want, walking into an election as a conservative, where like all but one of the social media platforms very much want to censor your opinion,” Gonzales says.

“The reasons that they argue that these plaintiffs lack standing just seem to be the most convoluted bogus reasons in my opinion. How can you say that past actions are not proof of future actions? Like the Biden regime has a very clear record of pressuring social media companies, Big Tech platforms to censor conservatives,” she adds.


Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Alito: Americans Will Regret Court’s Allowance Of ‘Blatantly Unconstitutional’ Censorship

‘It was blatantly unconstitutional, and the country may come to regret the Court’s failure to say so,’ Alito wrote in his dissent.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett will determine the fate of the Obama presidential library



The fate of the Obama Presidential Library has been placed into the hands of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was nominated to the court by former President Donald Trump.

That's because a conservation group has filed an emergency motion to stop the beginning of construction planned at a site of a Chicago park.

Local residents and an organization called Protect Our Parks have vehemently opposed the presidential library on the grounds that the edifice would obliterate historical and wildlife resources. They also claim that the federal government has not filed the appropriate environmental reviews for the project.

"Moreover, any removal of trees or destruction of roadways, vistas, and the landscape in Jackson Park will be irrevocable," said a statement from Protect Our Parks in June.

Barrett is the justice assigned to the region and will determine whether the Supreme Court should take up the case. According to NBC News, a federal judge and the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently declined to stop construction.

Residents near the proposed site at Jackson Park on the South Side of Chicago also fear that the massive $700 million project will lead to gentrification and higher rents.

"When new developments come to underserved communities, usually it means displacement, disenfranchisement for the residents who are already living there," said Devondrick Jeffers of STOP Chicago to WBBM-TV.

"You don't have to be a scholar to realize they can tell you anything, that don't mean they'll do it. We need it in writing!" said Michele Williams, who lives across the street from the site. "I mean, do you really think they're gonna keep us here?"

A tweet from Obama's social media account in February appeared to obliquely refer to some of the objections.

"Our hope is that the center will breathe new life into historic Jackson Park while delivering jobs, growth, and much more to the South Side," tweeted Obama. "Let's get to work."

In 2019, the same group accused the Barack Obama Foundation of violating laws against private development of the land by switching from a public group to a private organization.

Here's more about the Obama presidential library:

Some Residents Afraid Of Obama Library Gentrificationwww.youtube.com

Coming Friday: Mississippi heartbeat bill among first cases Justice Amy Coney Barrett will consider



The Supreme Court will deliberate Friday on whether it will review a Mississippi pro-life law that bans abortion after an unborn child's heartbeat can be detected.

If the Supreme Court takes the case, it will be the first potential challenge to Roe v. Wade's precedent to come before the court with newly installed Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett hearing the arguments.

Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch petitioned the court last week to review the state's 15-week abortion ban, asking the court to clarify how lower courts should interpret a previous Supreme Court decision striking down a Louisiana pro-life law, CBS News reported. He cited several opinions from federal appeals court judges that varied in their reasoning on separate abortion-related cases, some citing the Supreme Court's majority opinion from Medical Services v. Russo to strike down restrictions on abortion, others referring to Chief Justice John Roberts' concurring opinion to keep those regulations in place.

"This case remains an ideal vehicle to promptly resolve both that question and the first question presented — the contradictions in this Court's decisions over use of 'viability' as a bright line for measuring pro-life legislation," Fitch wrote in a supplemental brief sent to the Supreme Court.

The case asks the court to decide "whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional," taking direct aim at the heart of the Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortion before fetal viability at 24 weeks nationally.

The lawyer for the pro-choice group challenging Mississippi's heartbeat law told CBS News the law explicitly violates Roe's precedent.

"Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban defies nearly fifty years of Supreme Court precedent," Hillary Schneller, the staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, told CBS News. "Mississippi's abortion ban, by definition, is a complete and insurmountable obstacle for pregnant people seeking abortion care after 15 weeks."

On Friday, the nine justices of the Supreme Court will meet to discuss and vote on whether they will hear this case and others. Four justices must agree to take the case before the Supreme Court will hear the arguments. An announcement on the Supreme Court's decision is expected to come Monday.

All eyes are on newly confirmed Justice Amy Coney Barrett as the court weighs this decision. Progressives fear and conservatives hope that Barrett's addition to the court has cemented a 6-3 originalist-leaning majority that will overturn Roe, ending the national legalization of abortion and sending the issue back to the states.

The last abortion-related case to come before the court was Medical Services v. Russo, in which a 5-4 majority blocked a Louisiana law that required abortionists to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the four progressives on the court in a concurring opinion, saying that while he disagrees with prior rulings declaring such restrictions unconstitutional, the court is bound by precedent.

Multiple senators questioned Barrett on the role of Supreme Court precedent during her confirmation hearings, with Democrats attempting to have her clarify her views on Roe in particular. Barrett, following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's example, refused to give her opinion on Roe v. Wade's precedent, noting that there were pending cases before the court system challenging aspects of Roe and that it would be unethical for her to signal to potential litigants how she might rule.

During one exchange with Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), however, Barrett did not list Roe among several cases she called "super-precedents" that the court cannot overturn because they are established law. An example of one such case would be Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 court ruling that declared "separate is not equal," ending racial segregation in public schools.

She didn't tip her cards, though, deftly answering Klobuchar's questions in a way that left her position on Roe's precedent ambiguous.

"Roe is not a super-precedent because calls for its overruling have never ceased, but that doesn't mean that Roe should be overruled," Barrett explained.

Other pending cases the Supreme Court may consider are whether a New York prosecutor will get access to President Donald Trump's financial information and election-related cases.