Yesterday we saw headlines like these about a Supreme Court ruling. Click the links to read the articles.
They sound alarming to those of us who view Big Brother with intense suspicion, and see the courts as avoiding their constitutional responsibilities by failing to rein in said brother when necessary. However, as worded, they are not true. The Supreme Court made no such decision and no such ruling. What really happened was rather simpler (although, to my mind, still not satisfactory):
In a 6-3 decision, the Court found that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue - as opposed to tossing the case on merit - just like the vast majority of election fraud cases which didn't make it past lower courts.
There's more at the link.
We may dislike it when a court decision goes in favor of the progressive left, and cheer when the opposite happens - but we're allowing our partisan likes and fears to color our understanding of the truth. To claim that the Supreme Court yesterday allowed federal government censorship of social media is simply not true. The fact that SCOTUS' decision allows a questionable relationship between government and social media to continue in certain forms unless and until plaintiffs with standing to sue take up the matter does not mean that it's legal, and does not mean that any illegal acts committed until a ruling is given can't be prosecuted.
That's why we have courts. That's why we try to implement the rule of law, rather than partisan political perspectives, in our society. The courts are supposed to prevent excesses, stop legal violations, and punish those that occur. If they acted in an arbitrary, opinionated way instead of within the framework of the rule of law, the courts themselves would be untrustworthy - as partisan as the legislative branch of government, in fact. We've seen in recent weeks how some of our courts appear to be precisely that, in cases against former President Trump in New York. Even liberal/progressive judicial authorities have joined the chorus of disapproval and anger against such visibly partisan proceedings, and are calling for them to be overturned. The outrage, the bias, is so blatant that I hope and trust the New York courts will be stopped in their tracks - but that has to happen through the legal system, not because those with one political viewpoint "win" over those with another. If we stopped those cases by employing legally questionable tactics, just like those who "won" them, we'd be as guilty as they are of corrupting the law to serve partisanship.
I don't like yesterday's decision. I don't like anything that gives the executive branch of government any form of censorship or control over news and social media. I hope any and all such things will be systematically dealt with in future. However, that will only happen if those who do have standing to challenge them, raise such a challenge. Instead of moaning because partisan political perspectives (look at the political views of the challengers yesterday) were not able to impose their viewpoint on those of a different perspective, why don't we encourage the judicial (and, if necessary, the legislative) branches of government to clarify the laws and standards involved, so that loopholes are blocked and those with standing to intervene are defined more clearly?
When any side tries to manipulate, obfuscate or adumbrate the law for partisan advantage, we all stand in danger. Let's not allow our own passions to lead us astray.
True dat.
Peter
9 comments:
I have to disagree with you on this one. If state governments and people directly harmed by government agencies leaning on tech companies like Facebook and Google for censorship don't have standing to sue, then who does have standing? Please read Justice Alito's dissent; he makes this exact point. Standing in this case is used to avoid the court looking into the merits of the case. This is the same argument used in all the election fraud cases that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court - no standing. I believe the SC has made a very bad decision here in what is possibly one of the most important First Amendment cases in recent years.
On a separate note, I hope you are feeling better after your recent surgery.
You just identified how the game is played.
However, that will only happen if those who do have standing to challenge them, raise such a challenge
Just like in the 2020 election where there were any number of court cases challenging the election fraud, the Left courts just kept denying "standing" and allowed none of the cases to proceed. The Left then used the lack of court cases as "proof" that the 2020 election was the "fairest", "most law abiding" election ever. And so it goes.
There are other examples using the same playbook, this just being the latest example.
If any citizen doesn't have 'standing' to sue for redress of grievances by a federal agent then we no longer live in a free nation ruled by agreed upon laws but are serfs to an uncontrolled bureaucracy.
@Landroll: Problem is, if ANY citizen can do that, you'll get an awful lot of bogus and nuisance lawsuits. Consider the prison population of the USA (about 2% of the entire population overall, including those accused, on trial, convicted, sentenced, serving their time, and on probation or discharge). That small percentage files about 25% of all lawsuits in the nation - because, by law, prisons have to make available to them law libraries containing all the laws that affect them, and they have all the time in the world to think up ways to make the lives of prison officials more difficult. I wrote about that in my book on prison chaplaincy.
Therefore, "standing" is a very important concept. In so many words, you have "standing" if the law or procedure in question affected you or your family or business. If it didn't, you have no "standing" to challenge it.
Thank you for the clip from "A Man for All Seasons". "Standing" is a thin line.
in the majority opinion, it wasn't just standing, it was also the claim that there was moot because the people were no longer at risk of being censored.
The SC keeps falling for this argument from govenment "yes, what we did was wrong, but we aren't doing it now, so you can't rule that what we did was wrong as we aren't doing it now"
it takes a few cycles of the government reinstating the bad policies after getting the case dismissed before the courts say "no, this is not moot because you can re-implement this policy in the future"
I wish they would wise up to this tactic sooner and be less trusting of the claim that "we stopped doing that, to dismiss this lawsuit"
David Lang
The Right has a pack of as many strident liars as the Left.
The only difference is that when the Left's are identified, they go up in stature.
When the Right's are discovered, they simply move the goalposts, stick their fingers in their ears to the third knuckle, and claim they can't hear you.
Avoid both.
The SC has ruled that, essentially, the government can do whatever it wants regarding censorship, because nobody has "Standing" to sue them to prevent it.
They didn't rule that nobody had standing, they just ruled that these people didn't have standing.
Yes, this is a problem with them ducking the question, but it's better than ruling that what the Biden admin did was legal. It just means a hunt for people with a better claim to standing. Not the first time and won't be the last time.
David Lang
Post a Comment