Facebook Twitter YouTube SoundCloud RSS

Looks Like Two Trump Justices Have Just Failed the First Amendment Test

Make no mistake about it – this latest SCOTUS decision is a major blow against free speech online. And it can’t come at a more crucial juncture in American politics as we approach another contentious presidential election cycle. 

The Biden Administration is celebrating the 6-3 decision against Missouri and Louisiana. Why? Because state and local Democrat officials are eagerly looking to crack down on alleged election-related “misinformation and disinformation” ahead of November 5th.

The plaintiffs in this case were right to impose a check on the federal government’s egregious violation of the First Amendment, where federal agencies and even the White House itself – pressured Facebook, Twitter, Google and YouTube to massively censor users’ speech and even sharing information by deleting posts critical of government disastrous policies like the vaccine mandates and Covid restrictions. Let’s also remember Jack Dorsey and Twitter’s censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story ahead of the 2020 election. 

Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett have indeed done some significant damage, not only to the rights and freedoms of Americans, but anyone around the world weighing-in on any issue online that Washington and their Big Tech donor class deem to be too controversial for public discussion and debate.

Steve Deace
writes for The Blaze

The Supreme Court’s ruling on Wednesday in Murthy v. Missouri was no mere procedural vote on standing. Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett have betrayed us.

The U.S. Supreme Court may have mortally wounded the Constitution this week by seemingly forgetting or not caring that the First Amendment is kind of the whole ballgame.

I mean, it was first, after all. Isn’t that important? You might even say that it — to borrow a legal phrase — indicates “standing.”

Stick with me now, John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Because if “we the people” don’t have permanent and unambiguous standing on behalf of the First Amendment to the Constitution, then explain to me what we can possibly have standing on without threat of it being taken away.

And what is the ACLU’s standing to sue Oklahoma over speech? Or what’s the Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation’s standing to sue Louisiana over speech? Notice how this street only goes one way? So if you happen to think this latest Supreme Court perversion of justice in Murthy v. Missouri is just a procedural vote, let me first tell you that David French and his never-ending menagerie of blessings of liberty send their regards.

Let me now put a finer point on it. Do any of you remember the 2013 marriage case known as Windsor v. United States? And do you remember on what grounds the Supreme Court ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional? There were concurring majority opinions, but the main reason the court ruled against the marriage amendment in California was that — wait for it — the people of California lacked standing.

More than 8 million Californians voted for Proposition 8, which defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman. That’s more than had ever voted for any Republican candidate for office, from governor to president, in the state’s history. Thus, when it comes to questions of “standing,” the game has been afoot for quite some time.

This was not merely a simple procedural thing for the current court to rule on standing. This was a coward’s way out for Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. They are now in the same class of justices who botched Plessy v. FergusonDred Scott, and Roe v. Wade.

This Supreme Court ruling has made clear it is fine for you to be sorted as an “other” if it suits the appropriate powers and principalities. Now who is doing that sorting, you might ask?

In each of the three historic cases mentioned above, it was the government saying separate is equal, Dred Scott is property, and the unborn aren’t persons.

So shall it be moving forward regarding vaccines, transgenderism, and whatever else the woke terrorists demand. Can you imagine the level of censorship you should prepare to see in the next 19 weeks ahead of the November election? It doesn’t matter that they got caught red-handed burying the Hunter Biden laptop story to win last time. They just got permission to top that every day.

So don’t you dare try to tell me that I’m overreacting. I’ve written two best-selling books about the COVID scam that is the Orwellian impetus for the government and Big Tech cabal behind Murthy v. Missouri. Yet I’m now being told that we must vote Republican to get good judges so we can make censorship great again in the name of injecting a toxic genetic serum in our arms without any say whatsoever?

In hindsight — and I can’t believe I’m going to say this because I find it revolting — knowing what I know now after the pro-life movement has lost ground upon the rejection of Roe two year ago, I would honestly trade losing the Dobbs case in exchange for reversing Murthy. That’s how vital I think this is.

Social media is the modern-day town square, and you have been told to expect to get the hell out whenever it suits those who hate you for daring to get up in the morning and having an opinion that isn’t state-approved. I don’t know how it’s even possible to overreact to this dreadful decision. America’s founders threw tea into the harbor simply for being taxed too much. For this, they wouldn’t have hesitated to set the entire boat on fire and send it to the bottom of the ocean.

This is 2024, though. Today, I am compelled to vote for Donald Trump to throw a monkey wrench into this absurd and lawless status quo while fully realizing that he’s the guy who gave us two of the justices who just steamrolled the First Amendment. To think we fought like hell for a known mediocrity like Kavanaugh because of how deceitful we found the attacks against him during his confirmation only to have him just announce it’s open season on us.

Isn’t that a kick in the pants?

Tragically, we are probably not deserving of a better fate. Cultural gluttony and civic decadence can only go on for so long before the wheels come off and the destination becomes the bottom of a cliff. How’s that for “standing”?

I’m sure our children will understand.






Get Your Copy of New Dawn Magazine #203 - Mar-Apr Issue
Get Your Copy of New Dawn Magazine #203 - Mar-Apr Issue