Supreme Court Rebuffs Challenge To Biden's Social Media Outreach (reuters.com) 160
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected to impose limits on the way President Joe Biden's administration may communicate with social media platforms, overturning a lower court decision in a case brought by Missouri, Louisiana, and five individuals. In a 6-3 ruling, the court found plaintiffs lacked legal standing to sue, unable to show a "concrete link" between officials' conduct and harm suffered.
The case centered on whether the administration coerced platforms to censor disfavored speech when alerting them to content violating their policies, particularly regarding elections and COVID-19. The administration argued it sought to mitigate online misinformation hazards. Plaintiffs claimed platforms suppressed conservative-leaning speech under government pressure. The Justice Department contended that government officials have long used their platform to express views on public matters.
The case centered on whether the administration coerced platforms to censor disfavored speech when alerting them to content violating their policies, particularly regarding elections and COVID-19. The administration argued it sought to mitigate online misinformation hazards. Plaintiffs claimed platforms suppressed conservative-leaning speech under government pressure. The Justice Department contended that government officials have long used their platform to express views on public matters.
6-3 ruling (Score:2, Informative)
with the usual idiots, Conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissenting from the decision, (taken from the article)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Statements like this intrigue me. So Biden’s long term plan is to make the country communist. Then what? Who benefits?
Re:6-3 ruling (Score:4, Informative)
If the national debt is what makes someone socialist then Trump is 3x (2x before COVID) the communist Biden is and Regan was bigger than both of them.
By the numbers: Trump added $8.4 trillion in borrowing over a ten-year window, CRFB finds in a report out this morning.
Biden's figure clocks in at $4.3 trillion with seven months remaining in his term.
If you exclude COVID relief spending from the tally, the numbers are $4.8 trillion for Trump and $2.2 trillion for Biden.
https://www.axios.com/2024/06/... [axios.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Line Item Veto is possibly unconstitutional and frankly not in the spirit how our system works.
Clinton v. City of New York [wikipedia.org]
I don't have strong opinions on the 17th but it is popular with citizens, I don't think they would appreciate having that choice stripped from them but it could help people pay attention to state politics. On the other hand with how fucky state legislatures are its hardly the top priority.
Also try reading the Hur report, an incredibly mis-represented thing in the media. Hur also said Zw
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
with the usual idiots, Conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissenting from the decision, (taken from the article)
And the usual idiots on Slashdot look no further than "The newsbox told me to hate anything that the other team says or does, so I'm going to cheer the supreme court finding 'no concrete link' between government and the very obvious censorship of someone I don't like...so it's a huge win until the team I don't like uses the exact same thing against me for the next 4 years!"
Re: 6-3 ruling (Score:2)
But putting in some sort of (very long) term for SC justices is starting to make sense to me. Most of the justices have a clear, in-your-face political bias. Roberts is basically the only apolitical one of the bunch. The idea was that lifelong appointment would insulate them from the politics and allow them to do their job apolitically, but that simply hasnt
Re: (Score:2)
Yup and the single term nature means the same insulation from political influence and justices who did their term can go back to circuit courts if they so choose.
There's a court expansion plan I like to expand to something like 15 or 18 justices I heard I also like thats a bit more radical. It would have 1/3 be "liberal" another 1/3 "conservative" and remaining 1/3 is chosen and ratified by the other 2/3 but only in unanimous decision for each member. No chance of that happening but it's an intersting ide
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it is an interesting idea at all because I don't think it is workable. First there is no great definition of "conservative" or "liberal". Second, that presupposes there is only 1 dimension of being/thinking/categorizing, which is crazy. Third, you would probably never get the 2/3 (if you could ever define those) to *unanimously* decide on the other 1/3. They would spend all their time just endlessly rejecting candidates. So I don't know how that stuff could ever be started or finished.
I d
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I can't disagree with that. I did remember where i heard it though, it was Pete Buttigieg's plan when he was running. Maybe he answers some concerns here:
https://www.vox.com/2019/10/30... [vox.com]
The 18 year term limits is a real bill though by Ro Khanna
https://khanna.house.gov/media... [house.gov]
No standing? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
RTFA then. You may still disagree with their decision, but the justifications are in there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No standing? (Score:5, Informative)
What harm did the states suffer? Demonstrating harm is the basis of a lawsuit.
Re:No standing? (Score:4, Informative)
Because, as Barrett wrote, "they do not point to any specific instance of content moderation that caused them identifiable harm."
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The plaintiffs could not show a "concrete link" between the conduct by the officials and any harm that the plaintiffs suffered, Barrett wrote. They "emphasize that hearing unfettered speech on social media is critical to their work," Barrett wrote. "But they do not point to any specific instance of content moderation that caused them identifiable harm."
At issue was whether the administration crossed the line from mere communication and persuasion to strong arming or coercing platforms - sometimes called "jawboning" - to unlawfully censor disfavored speech, as lower courts found.
Keep in mind their claim is that Biden must be gagged, so they need to show Biden's speech is not protected by the 1st Amendment.
Re:No standing? (Score:5, Insightful)
This case had jack all to do with Biden. This case was officials going around suggesting that social media companies should remove certain types of content and 'look into' accounts.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you honestly think this case would have been filed if Trump was behind it? I mean Trump called Ted Cruz’s wife ugly and Cruz still rides his dick.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, if you're suggesting Biden was in control of the government while Trump was still president, go right ahead. At no point did I suggest Trump was behind anything, just that Biden had fuck all to do with it.
Re: (Score:2)
This case had jack all to do with Biden.
Normally, this type of claim is true; however, in this case it is not. It is the bureaucracy that is trying to use censorship (ostensibly for good, lol) and Biden is indeed the final authority within the bureaucracy. He could have put a stop to it simply and easily.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see how each state would not have standing, since these activities by the federal government can impact the outcome of a state election.
If the bar is (from the summary) "show a "concrete link" between officials' conduct and harm suffered." it seems obvious to me that your "can impact" doesn't reach that bar?
Re: (Score:3)
Court literally asked the States to provide a single example of concrete harm. The States kept replying with "well, maybe, one day, this might hurt..."
Yes, in theory, one day in the future this could be used to harm State elections. When that actually happens, then there you go, you've got six justices that will clearly smack that shit down. But until it actually happens, Conservative Justices do NOT operate on "what ifs". The letter of the law is the letter of the law. That's what they reliably do. (i
What the ruling was really about (Score:5, Insightful)
From the article,
"The plaintiffs could not show a "concrete link" between the conduct by the officials and any harm that the plaintiffs suffered, Barrett wrote. They "emphasize that hearing unfettered speech on social media is critical to their work," Barrett wrote. "But they do not point to any specific instance of content moderation that caused them identifiable harm.""
The ruling was based on being unable to prove a link between what the administration did and their getting banned. This is not the same as saying what the administration did was ok, only that they can't show harm from the administration's actions.
I know the posts on this will scream about 1A rights in both directions but that's not what the ruling was about. It was ruled based on lack of standing. They didn't not say anything about anyone's 1A rights.
Re:What the ruling was really about (Score:4, Insightful)
This is what they do when they don't want to make a decision. Reject it procedurally. I actually don't blame them for not wanting to make a decision, it's hard to figure out precisely how to cut this baby in half.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes they made the cowardly exit. This problem is not going away.
But seriously, they were willing to overturn roe v wade but can't rule on this one? That's really weak. They really should have provided proper legal guidance on what is and is not ok. This is a very disappointing ruling.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Roe v. Wade decision was a bad one and judicial overreach, as was admitted by honest people even if they wanted abortion law to be consistent across the country. The decision to throw it back to the states was the correct one, i'm essentially saying that they did the same thing there too - difference was they got rid of a crap ruling and replaced it with a procedural one that more or less the court shouldn't be involved.
They have often said things like "give us the right case" where you can convince a
Re:What the ruling was really about (Score:5, Informative)
It wasn't judicial overreach to say people have the right to privacy as per the 9th Amendment or that people have the inherent right to bodily autonomy. As we've seen, certain states have stated you do not have either of those rights which is completely opposite of the Founding Father's original intent.
If you don't believe privacy was one of the foremost issues in the minds of the founders, you clearly don't understand why the Constitution is they way it is.
Re: (Score:2)
It totally was. There's no mention of privacy in the Constitution and case law regarding a "right to privacy" didn't even exist before 1965's Griswold vs Comstock, which was the case that literally invented the right to privacy. So that's at least 200 years of judicial precedent of such a right not existing before they simply decided it did in 1965.
Re: (Score:2)
or that people have the inherent right to bodily autonomy.
The real problem is that it's not just one person, it's also a baby. If it were just the woman, then only a few nutcases would oppose abortion, and it would be a non-issue. But it's two people.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not "unwritten" if it's in there. That you can't find it shows how little you know, or care, about what the Constitution is about.
The Court affirming the right to privacy is upholding the Constitution, not legislating anything.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not "unwritten" if it's in there. That you can't find it shows how little you know, or care, about what the Constitution is about.
You're claiming right to privacy is written in the Constitution. Show us. That would end the back-and-forth yes-it-is/no-it-isn't crap.
Re: (Score:2)
4th Amendment,
3rd Amendment,
Re:What the ruling was really about (Score:4, Informative)
REF: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Soooo, you didn't ever read the 9th Amendment? Basically it states, in part, that just because a particular right is not explicitly enumerated in the Bill of Rights, does not imply that it does not exist, but rather that it is held by The People. Not Congress, Not the Judiciary, Not the President.
Here is the actual text: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
Re:What the ruling was really about (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What the ruling was really about (Score:4, Interesting)
What? The Dobs ruling was a highly unusual ruling for the Supreme Court to make as it completely ignored a half century of precedent. There's no way Democrats "knew" this whole time it would be over turned as it was practically unthinkable prior to Trump being elected and stacking the court.
Re: (Score:3)
What? The Dobs ruling was a highly unusual ruling for the Supreme Court to make as it completely ignored a half century of precedent. There's no way Democrats "knew" this whole time it would be over turned as it was practically unthinkable prior to Trump being elected and stacking the court.
First, what does "stacking the court" mean? When justices retire or die they get replaced. That's how the system works. If you meant to say "packing the court", that's not what packing the court is
Second, ever since Roe the Supreme Court nominations became a contentious mess with "roe v wade" litmus tests thrown at every candidate. The only reason for it was justifiable concern that Roe would be overturned. All they had to do to make it a moot point was pass Federal abortion rights legislation but they
Re: (Score:3)
You must be very young if you are unaware that Democrats have been running on the abortion issue in every election.
Nope, I'm just politically aware. Abortion has not been a major platform for Democrats in any election since Roe versus Wade until the Dobbs ruling happened. Political parties pretty much always include their best wedge issues in their party platforms because why the hell wouldn't you? Hence abortion rights now being presented by Democrats as a major platform for their party.
"Rare" is not "unthinkable"
Pretty close in this case. Most of the time when precedent is overturned it's on issues so small most don't notice. Not only is it extremely rare in general but it is incredibly rare for such a major issue.
Not as politically aware as you think. 1984 Democrat party platform https://www.presidency.ucsb.ed... [ucsb.edu]
"There can be little doubt that a Supreme Court chosen by Ronald Reagan would radically restrict constitutional rights and drastically reinterpret existing laws. Today, the fundamental right of a woman to reproductive freedom rests on the votes of six members of the Supreme Court—five of whom are over 75. That right could easily disappear during a second Reagan term"
1992 Democrat Party platform https: [ucsb.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Pro-abortion advocates knew for 50 years that Roe V Wade could and probably would get overturned and they did nothing to pass legislation in all that time, and for good reason. They need it as a wedge issue to attract voters.
It was an attractive wedge for both parties.
Re: (Score:2)
Pro-abortion advocates knew for 50 years that Roe V Wade could and probably would get overturned and they did nothing to pass legislation in all that time, and for good reason. They need it as a wedge issue to attract voters.
It was an attractive wedge for both parties.
Agree completely. Neither party is willing to negotiate a reasonable compromise.
Re: (Score:2)
They also can't seem to recognize that bodily autonomy is bodily autonomy and should be preserved, whether we're talking abortions or immunizations. Instead it's "bodily autonomy when I say so, but not for those people ever!"
Re:What the ruling was really about (Score:5, Informative)
This is what they do when they don't want to make a decision. Reject it procedurally. I actually don't blame them for not wanting to make a decision, it's hard to figure out precisely how to cut this baby in half.
This is what they do when there's no point to the case.
Social media companies were moderating them, the government made some suggestions to the social media companies about what kind of info was particularly harmful, and social media companies kept moderating them in ways that didn't really seem to have be related to the governments suggestions, and then the government stopped making suggestions.
What's victory look like? Government can't talk to the social media companies (which they largely stopped doing anyway)... and they get moderated exactly as before because the government didn't have anything to do with it in the first place.
The plaintiffs real beef is with the social media companies, but they can't sue the social media companies because the social media companies are perfectly entitled to moderate their platforms and they plaintiffs are just in it for the politics instead.
So instead they're suing the government for something the government isn't responsible for, hence the suit gets tossed and the Trump appointed Justice tells the 5th circuit to smarten up.
Re: (Score:2)
"they get moderated exactly as before because the government didn't have anything to do with it in the first place."
The twitter files showed that the FBI did have a heavy hand, paying twitter for users' info, and that the white house was requesting individual tweets be deleted. Even some DMs were deleted per govt request. Twitter had the former general counsel of the FBI working as their general counsel
Re: (Score:2)
the government made some suggestions to the social media companies
I understand the standing argument and I understand that I am not a lawyer, and I don't know if this should be illegal or not
But lets not pretend that this is basically the same as if you or I (or someone wealthy/important with access to social media companies) made suggestions.
There is at least the implication of consequences when a representative from the government "makes suggestions".
That's possible yes, but not in this case. For instance, one of the plaintiffs claimed the FBI got Twitter to suspend his brother's account, ignoring the fact that he didn't have evidence of the FBI's influence you can't have an addressable injury on behalf of your brother.
Re: (Score:2)
From the article:
The justices, in a 6-3 ruling, overturned a lower court's 2023 decision that various federal officials likely violated the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment ...
So they overturned what another court said about peoples 1A rights, without directly addressing those via 1A, based on standing. People could certainly still yell about 1A rights since that much is kinda left unresolved (IE: is there a federal agency that could effectively jawbone a social media platform into removing one or more user comments, even if there was a direct link between such action and plaintive harm, without violating the first amendment?). There are examples of 1A exceptions
Re: (Score:2)
It was a cowardly and disappointing ruling.
The problem is not going away. We are just going to have several more years of back n forth over what the 1A means and what is protected or not and by whom until another case gets to them which they will hopefully actually take and rule on in one direction or the other.
To me, in many ways this non ruling is worse than if they ruled in a way that didn't fit my personal beliefs on the topic. They failed to do their job.
Re: (Score:2)
It was a cowardly and disappointing ruling.
The problem is not going away. We are just going to have several more years of back n forth over what the 1A means and what is protected or not and by whom until another case gets to them which they will hopefully actually take and rule on in one direction or the other.
To me, in many ways this non ruling is worse than if they ruled in a way that didn't fit my personal beliefs on the topic. They failed to do their job.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
To me, in many ways this non ruling is worse than if they ruled in a way that didn't fit my personal beliefs on the topic. They failed to do their job.
Their job is to reject the case if the plaintiff lacks standing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was a cowardly and disappointing ruling.
Because cowards follow rule of law!
Re: (Score:2)
So they overturned . . . based on standing.
Yes. As they should. (Also, ftfy, you're welcome.)
Re: (Score:2)
So they overturned . . . based on standing.
Yes. As they should.
FYI, I didn't say they shouldn't. The point I made was that the overturned decision was based on 1A and, because they didn't touch that part of the argument, that issue was left unresolved. IE: had they standing, would the 1A based ruling have stood?
(Also, ftfy ...)
Gee, thanks for nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if an administration is doing its level best with the information available, there are still tradeoffs which entail harm to some parties.
In the case of Covid, throwing seniors to the wolves would have saved everybody else a lot of expense and inconvenience. Shifting schools to remote learning having maybe the worst cost / benefit ratio.
Re: (Score:2)
The government does not have 1st amendment rights, btw. I feel that this is the usual 'case wasn't good enough' sidestepping that the court often does.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree it doesn't have 1A rights but I wish they'd said that or just said, we're wrong and it does. Maybe this case did suck and wasn't solid enough to make a real ruling. Still leaves a bad taste. Now everyone is going to run around saying the USSC said the USG has 1A rights after reading a headline even though that's not at all what they said.
Links (Score:3)
Ruling: https://www.supremecourt.gov/o... [supremecourt.gov]
Previous slashdot stories:
Judge Blocks US Officials From Tech Contacts in First Amendment Case https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
Judge Rules White House Pressured Social Networks To 'Suppress Free Speech' https://politics.slashdot.org/... [slashdot.org]
Supreme Court Blocks Restrictions On Biden Administration Efforts To Get Platforms To Remove Social Media Posts https://yro.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]
US Supreme Court Seems Wary of Curbing US Government Contacts With Social Media Platforms https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
Calm down, EVERYBODY on BOTH sides (Score:2)
This is NOT what most of you seem to think it is. This was the opinion in MURTHY, SURGEON GENERAL, ET AL. v. MISSOURI ET AL. which is just about the request for an injunction to stop the government from doing this stuff while the actual legal case is going on. In effect, the Biden administration can keep pushing Facebook and Twitter/X etc to not publish stuff it does not like and these companies can bow to that pressure [or not] as they like while the actual underlying case plods along in the lower courts.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
COVID taught us that science, education and reality are decided by flawed and biased people.
Re: (Score:2)
Science doesn't show bias. Data is presented and either confirmed or disproved.
Re: (Score:2)
The platonic ideal for science does not show bias. Science as actually practiced during the pandemic involved preemptively shutting down competing viewpoints to keep society marching in the same direction. Data is only presented if it does not conflict with the anti-misinformation mandate set by the Trust The Science!! crowd.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Science doesn't show bias. Data is presented and either confirmed or disproved.
Science is a methodology not a destination. It doesn't offer conclusions..
Re: (Score:2)
Science doesn't show bias. Data is presented and either confirmed or disproved.
Bias is intrinsic in people. Even in scientists. Not to mention their sources of funding.
Often experiments are not repeated by others. Often there is no attempt to confirm or disprove. People assume correctness, cite papers, and go get their own funding to do more work. That's why we hear big noises years later when long-accepted papers are overturned.
Re: (Score:2)
Science is a methodology not a destination.
Just being pedantic here, but I have been to science museums.
Re: (Score:2)
Just being pedantic here, but I have been to science museums.
Words commonly have a multitude of meanings. It is only when considered in context that intended meaning can be understood. Sometimes language used so vaguely that effective disambiguation between parties is not possible.
From available context "COVID taught us that science, education and reality are decided by flawed and biased people." and "Science doesn't show bias. Data is presented and either confirmed or disproved." ... My assumption is "science doesn't show bias" is talking about methodology because
Re: (Score:3)
But for most Americans it appeared that each time the initial statements of how to stay safe were mo
Re: (Score:2)
in my mind what COVID has taught us, is that Americans (at least) have no idea that science is a a way to understand and predict reality. That when we now very little about a thing (say in Jan of 2020) and make some simple common sense statements about what to do, then by March we have learnt more, so we modify those statements, then in August, we know even more, so once again, we modify those statements...
But for most Americans it appeared that each time the initial statements of how to stay safe were modified, that just seemed to prove to them that 'scientists know nothing'.
They were too busy trying to manage the public they didn't have any time for the truth.
I would go back to the David Rubinstein interview on May 22 2019... Listen to what Fauci said at the end of the Interview and listen to what public health officials actually did during the pandemic.
Complete 180... Doubling down on solutions that were literally laughed derisively at while concurrently perusing none of the items deemed beneficial in public messaging. Common dogma compiled over generations thrown out in an
Re: (Score:2)
When you discovered there's no Santa, I bet you never believed that Lyin' bitch again.
Mostly, I wondered who the hell was in my room then!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Buddy, reality is decided by reality.
Until idiots decided that "my truth" was reality. Reality is still reality, but these clowns reject reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Clowns have been rejecting reality for ages. For example:
Schedule I
Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Some examples of Schedule I drugs are: heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana (cannabis), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), methaqualone, and peyote.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
science is why our world, as it is, exists as it does today
That's ass-backward. Science is what we know about existence. It does not cause existence.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. Science is a procedure, not a database. Just like how woodworking creates wood products, science creates testable predictions. The resulting knowledge is at the core of everything in our society, including the food you eat.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. Science is a procedure, not a database. Just like how woodworking creates wood products, science creates testable predictions. The resulting knowledge is at the core of everything in our society, including the food you eat.
Funny thing about words . . . they have multiple definitions. And science is both a collection of methodologies and a collection of results.
To put it in terms you'd understand, it's like being both be an asshole and a piece of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
How about you tell that to yourself then, and apologize to the guy you mistakenly "corrected".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An n95 mask is 95% effective for the size of the stuff it intends to block. that means 5% can get through. Meaning,
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a statistics expert but I did take the lower division statistics courses in college as required for the CS department. I have the basics down. It wasn't terribly hard but also not something I'd want to do as a career.
When I really want to get into a nonsensical statistical debate I ask my phd degreed stat buddy his take on something and then troll him until we both start laughing. He's so far out ahead he can't really explain what he does at work. Or maybe he doesn't do anything but bullshit? :-
Re: (Score:2)
It really frustrates me to see how the mainstream media misrepresents stuff, I am su
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if it was ever otherwise but main stream media is terrible at anything related to all of: math, statistics, all forms of hard science, most soft science, most eras of history, and anything requiring analytical skills.
This new-to-campus junior transfer girl walked up to me clearly lost and wanted help finding her next class in one of the more obscure buildings (when I was a school kid). Pretty as Hell so I walked her 15m across campus the wrong way for me to talk with her. She was a journalism
Re: (Score:2)
Was teaching the lowest of the low, 'Basic Science' class to the kids that just wanted a degree and you needed at least one science for that at the school I was teaching at. Earth Science. Simple class, my syllabus stated that each week t
Re: (Score:2)
back in the day, if Walter Cronkite said it, it was so...
Back in that particular day, I had one set of grandparents who watched Cronkite and one set who flatly refused to because of his bias.
There was never a time in American journalism without bias. There were always people who noted it and reacted.
The fact that you point to Cronkite tells us more about when you were a child than anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
Who gives a damn about when I was a child? Oh, and Cronkite had a fairly long career, I watched him as an adult as well, and when he went offline, it was like you could see 'news' organizations drop their level of fact checking down to single digits
Re: (Score:3)
People are disgusting. I stay 6 feet away from them now.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, fair point well made.
Re: (Score:2)
Well we all had our pods, too.
You were probably in your mom's pod if you were in her basement at the time.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm still waiting for Herman Cain's opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Have they considered accepting science, education, reality in general? It would be irresponsible not to.
It's the court system. They don't believe in any of that. They follow precedent.
Re: (Score:2)
"Everything is interstate commerce, especially your houseplants" -- our most honorable deciders of legal truth.
Re: (Score:2)
"Everything is interstate commerce, especially your houseplants" -- our most honorable deciders of legal truth.
I've been trying to plant native plants. They tend to be meaner than weeds and they can handle whatever the local climate and critters can throw at them. Are those plants also interstate commerce? I suspect they can beat up lawyers, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, if the government wants to regulate those plants then they will be classified as interstate commerce.
Re: (Score:2)
>"It's the court system. They don't believe in any of that. They follow precedent."
Not always. If they did, we would still have slavery, for example. No court should blindly or rigidly follow precedent. Precedent just sets the bar for what has been generally OK and not OK based on prior decisions, without having to dig much deeper. It is a useful shortcut to help set the tone of the game for future litigation. If they didn't have that tool, the already slow and overwhelmed court system would grind t
Re: (Score:2)
How dare you not except my narrow politically tainted view of what I've been told is reality by some politicians or late night operative! How dare you question the consensus of activists and politicians that threw the Scientific Theory out the door in favor of power and control, and have relentlessly demonize those that pioneered modern science as "DENIERS"!! HOW DARE YOU!
Ok, then, exception granted.
Re: (Score:2)
That's, "NO CARRIE%%^^%%T##%"
Stuff here to bypass the slashdot all caps filter
Re: (Score:2)
:-)
Seriously though, my old USRobotics 9600 would corrupt after the error message. Shrug.