A U.S. Supreme Court opinion released Wednesday gave the Biden White House an unexpected win, was a blow to "the indispensable right" of a free society, and disproved court critics’ claims that the high court swings too far to the right.
It also suggests a major political shift — that the Democratic Party is no longer the party heralding the free expression of ideas.
But more than anything, it illustrates that all but three of the justices would rather find an excuse to not rule at all, rather than confront an a grievous First Amendment violation head-on.
The Supreme Court dismissed Murthy v. Missouri by a 6-3 vote, which alleged that the Biden administration pressured social media platforms to censor posts that were claimed to have contained misinformation on COVID-19.
It didn’t take much proof — the White House openly bragged that they were flagging what they thought were "problematic" posts.
"We are in regular touch with the social media platforms and those engagements typically happen through members of our senior staff and also members of our COVID-19 team — given as Dr. Murthy conveyed, this is a big issue, of misinformation, specifically on the pandemic," then-White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki said in mid-2021.
But rather than directly tackle the Biden administration’s clear constitutional violations, the majority held that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing to bring the lawsuit because they couldn’t prove "a real and immediate threat of repeated injury."
Again, the Biden White House openly bragged that they were pressuring social media platforms to limit the free exchange of ideas.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. He reasoned that the case could be "one of the most important free speech cases to reach" the Supreme Court "in years.”
And instead of taking the ball and running with it, the court punted.
The decision — or more accurately the court’s refusal to make a decision — appalled civil libertarians of all political stripes.
Cornell University law professor William Jacobson appeared on The Jesse Kelly Show within hours of the release of the opinion and said "we lost in the worst possible way."
Jacobson, who also founded the popular legal/political blogging site Legal insurrection, explained that the decision "slams the courthouse doors shut on people who want to seek an injunction,” adding that "this really is limited to the injunctive relief — getting the government to stop."
Jacobson concluded that "people who though they had a rock-solid conservative court don’t have it."
The day before the court released its opinion, USA Today published an opinion piece written by George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, who suggested that "we are now seeing what is arguably the most dangerous anti-free speech movement in our history," and he laid it all at the feet of Joe Biden.
He compared Biden to President John Adams who, in 1800 "used the Alien and Sedition Acts to arrest his political opponents — including journalists, members of Congress and others."
After Wednesday’s decision, Turley, like Jacobson, was disheartened — especially with the court’s use of standing to halt the plaintiffs’ ability to even present their claims.
“It’s very frustrating for the free speech community because standing is often used to block meritorious claims,” he said.
"This is one of the most fundamental issues that we are facing."
Ironically, earlier this month Simon & Schuster released a new book written by Turley on freedom of expression, "The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage."
He referred to the White House’s silencing of social media as "one of the largest censorship systems in our history — if not the largest. It’s been called 'Orwellian' by lower court judges."
And speaking of Orwellian, novelist George Orwell once observed that "The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it."
Plaintiffs in Murthy v. Missouri also included the state of Louisiana and a number of individuals — notably medical professionals who had different opinions about the origin, nature, prevention, and treatment of COVID-19.
We used to call that "getting a second opinion" and it was generally recommended. But in the age of Biden, the White House believed those opinions were heresy that needed to be censored.
Last month the president confirmed that there’s an "American principle that no one is above the law."
Apparently that principle doesn’t apply if your name is Joe Biden — at least not yet.
`Michael Dorstewitz is a retired lawyer and has been a frequent contributor to Newsmax. He is also a former U.S. Merchant Marine officer and an enthusiastic Second Amendment supporter. Read Michael Dorstewitz's Reports — More Here.
© 2024 Newsmax. All rights reserved.