Missouri v. Biden

originally posted by: LordAhriman
Save us some clicking and reading. I, a Missourian, wants to know what constitutional rights Joe Biden has taken away, specifically.

No Q cryptic codes.

No dodging questions.

I have lived in Missouri for 43 years, and I want to know what constitutional rights that I have lost.

WTF are you even talking about? Where did the op say anything about lost Constitutional rights? Its obvious you didn't read the op or the article linked in it, you just knee jerk the same venom you spew every time you get triggered.

And how about a direct answer this time?

No cryptic bs.

No dodging questions....

originally posted by: AntiTrump

originally posted by: WingDingLuey

originally posted by: AntiTrump

originally posted by: WingDingLuey

originally posted by: AntiTrump

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: JinMI

Oh, I get it now. You think that student loan forgiveness is bad.

Doesn't matter what I think.

It's unconstitutional.

What was unconstitutional was Reagan gutting Affordable Student Loan & Pell Grant programs which allowed colleges to become “ for profit “

what started this lie?

So Reagan & David Stockman didn’t gut student loan & Pell Grant programs , because you think they didn’t ?
It’s no lie , but rather the grim meat hook reality of conservative ideas in education.
The progressives have run amuck in the unregulated college realms post Reagan.

you can show how proof?

this big

theintercept.com...

""Reagan Adviser Warned Free College Would Create a Dangerous “Educated Proletariat” ""

well that came true anyway in more way than one

originally posted by: WingDingLuey

originally posted by: AntiTrump

originally posted by: WingDingLuey

originally posted by: AntiTrump

originally posted by: WingDingLuey

originally posted by: AntiTrump

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: JinMI

Oh, I get it now. You think that student loan forgiveness is bad.

Doesn't matter what I think.

It's unconstitutional.

What was unconstitutional was Reagan gutting Affordable Student Loan & Pell Grant programs which allowed colleges to become “ for profit “

what started this lie?

So Reagan & David Stockman didn’t gut student loan & Pell Grant programs , because you think they didn’t ?
It’s no lie , but rather the grim meat hook reality of conservative ideas in education.
The progressives have run amuck in the unregulated college realms post Reagan.

you can show how proof?

this big

theintercept.com...

""Reagan Adviser Warned Free College Would Create a Dangerous “Educated Proletariat” ""

well that came true anyway in more way than one

The conservatives were freaked out by the anti-war college revolts of the sixties. Especially in Reagan’s California.
Before Reagan was even a candidate for President, he was cooking up plans to stifle anti-war hippies & blacks on college campuses.
So he gutted them .
Reagan was a horrible person.

originally posted by: AntiTrump

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: LordAhriman

Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Reddit... The government told these companies to remove and /or censor content it didn't approve of.

This is a proven fact, as demonstrated by documents provided by the federal government.

No one requires you to get your news from social media.
All those social media sites are joined willingly as well are free for basic use .
How were your rights violated ?
TikTok , Twitter & Facebook can make up any story they want & it does not violate your personal rights , because NO State or Federal law requires me to join or read these sites .
It’s not cool that our leaders use dishonesty on popular social media platforms, but who cares ?

Take ATS for instance , there are 100s of thousands of opinions catalogued here & no matter how correct, wrong , corrupt or harmful those opinions are , they violate NO ONE’S RIGHTS .

It doesn't matter what you think.

It is illegal for the Federal government to directly or indirectly suppress the free speech.

If you had bothered to read the source, you would see that there is tons of evidence that the federal govt. did this, it's not even a question.

A new update :

So one of the Federal Government's arguments against this lawsuit is that the States don't have standing to sue them for violating the First Amendment.

Now just about every State with a democrat AG plus DC has filed an amicus brief to support the Govt's efforts to suppress speach it doesn't support.

a reply to: watchitburn

Another update :

This is a good one, CISA has been added to the injunction against the government from communicating with social media companies.

I'm still not sure how they got left off the original injunction, but they were re-included on the ruling of an appeal today by the 5th Circuit court.

twitter.com...

a reply to: watchitburn

“The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history. Right now, across the country, election officials are reviewing and double checking the entire election process prior to finalizing the result.

CISA on November 11.....

Thanks for keeping up with this.

Update:

Edit: it's going to be a hearing on the temporary injunction happening next week. Not the actual case starting.

Here are a couple videos from Tracy Beanz of UncoverDC recapping all the BS shenanigans involved in the case:

Dark to Light: Everything You Need to Know About Missouri v. Biden Part I

Dark to Light: Everything You Need to Know About Missouri v. Biden Part II

And here's a link where you can download a PDF of the case text from Reuters: CaseText

Update:

Another Subpoena has been filed in the case. This time based on the perjury of Fauci during the recent House Oversite committee hearings.





They will be requesting to subpoena Google's servers for all their emails and deleted emails regarding their funding and cover-up of the Gain of Function research that created Covid.

These people are really stupid.



Dumber



And dumber'er

a reply to: watchitburn

The decision dropped today.

Tossed back for standing.

Another bungle from SCOTUS on the tough stuff reminiscent of Texas v Pennsylvania.

I don't mind when they defer back to congress for clarification or statutory issues but this is just straight up shirking their duties.

The dissent by Alito confirms as much.

a reply to: JinMI

Yes, definitely disappointing.

As I mentioned in the other thread, it looks like at least 3 of the judges didn't read the case record based on their opinions.

It sounds like they made their rulings based on the oral arguments a few weeks ago. I've heard that the State's did not do a good job during the oral arguments.

But it's just a ruling on the Injunction. The case will still continue.

Unfortunately the federal government will be allowed to continue pressuring social media to censor and remove unfavorable content.

But at least Musk is still telling them to pound sand with X.