Supreme Court Ruling Trashed by Marjorie Taylor Greene: 'May Sink the Ship'

[Gunny]

Supreme Court Ruling Trashed by Marjorie Taylor Greene: 'May Sink the Ship' (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/supreme-court-ruling-trashed-by-marjorie-taylor-greene-may-sink-the-ship/ar-BB1p0bwz?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=aea198c2dbc04b80ac89055e8389e235&ei=11)

[fj1200]

Supreme Court Ruling Trashed by Marjorie Taylor Greene: 'May Sink the Ship' (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/supreme-court-ruling-trashed-by-marjorie-taylor-greene-may-sink-the-ship/ar-BB1p0bwz?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=aea198c2dbc04b80ac89055e8389e235&ei=11)


Writing on behalf of the six judges who backed overturning the decision, Justice Amy Coney Barrett (https://www.newsweek.com/topic/amy-coney-barrett), a Trump appointee, said the Louisiana appeals court had based its verdict on "clearly erroneous" evidence.

Specifically, she said there is no record to suggest the Biden administration had sent a large number of requests to X, formerly Twitter (https://www.newsweek.com/topic/twitter), urging the social media giant to remove content, though it did once request the removal of a fake account impersonating the president's granddaughter.

That's interesting. If true it begs the question was LA just bucking at the chance to get a decision against the administration on the books and/or were they too hasty in actually taking the time to provide the critical evidence?

[Gunny]

That's interesting. If true it begs the question was LA just bucking at the chance to get a decision against the administration on the books and/or were they too hasty in actually taking the time to provide the critical evidence?I'm going with lack of homework.

All BS and nitnoid arguments aside, the fact is it seemed quite obvious the Biden Admin was trying to control the narrative in a one-sided manner. IMO, it is not the Federal government's place be a social media influencer, and I consider such an abuse of power. It has official channels to spread its swill and should be confined to official channels to do so. Further, for those elected/appointed officials that use social media to push official information, it is also my opinion it be stamped, certified and baptized as "official" and feet held to the fire for officials passing bum scoop.

Seems to me a lot of the more loudmouth, ignorant officials are allowed to state whatever they want without consequence.

While I am not a subscriber to social media per se, I do watch videos of some of the garbage that comes from it. If I see/hear something worth checking out, I check it out.

[fj1200]

Seems like the three dissenters would have wanted a decision necessarily in lieu of what was actually there. But then that probably would have been an activist court. Just spitballin'.

[Gunny]

Seems like the three dissenters would have wanted a decision necessarily in lieu of what was actually there. But then that probably would have been an activist court. Just spitballin'.It's one of those "eyes of the beholder" topics. Hang it up next to the "stolen election" accusations. Seems as though plaintiffs assumed certain facts were a given without providing evidence.

Not saying it is without merit. As I originally stated, intent was obvious. Just not provable. I can say that not trying to prove anything and qualifying it as my opinion based on observation. Which is about what they rolled into with.