Justice is rapidly becoming unjustice and we are moving daily into a chaotic environment. Today Justice Terry Doughty from the United States Western District of Louisiana ruled in Missouri v. Biden that the president or anyone from the executive could:
“…specifically flagging content or posts on social-media platforms and/or forwarding such to social-media companies urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner for removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech;”
Now please note that so-called Judge Doughty uses the word “content” repeatedly in referring to the first amendment. Now I have frequently posted that content is not protected speech and content is regulated currently. The idea that content of speech cannot be regulated is absurd on its very face of it, although I am usually criticized. But the regulation of the content of speech goes way back into English common law. Blackstone, citing Lord Chief Justice Mansfield says that the freedom of speech is only the liberty of freedom from prior governmental restraint, but that speech that is harmful to others or libelous or slanderous guarantees no liberty civil action or punishment if it creates harm or injury.
From Marshall to as recently as Justice Kennedy’s decision in Rosenberger v. Rector where he wrote, “Thus, in determining whether the State is acting to preserve the limits of the forum it has created so that the exclusion of a class of speech is legitimate, we have observed a distinction between, on the one hand, content discrimination, which may be permissible if it preserves the purposes of that limited forum, and, on the other hand, viewpoint discrimination, which is presumed impermissible when directed against speech otherwise within the forum's limitation” we have always regulated content. Yes since Sullivan speech against public figures must be with malice, but not for ordinary citizens. But those who pose lies are not safe. While a prospective spouse cannot any longer sue for a broken promise if an engagement is called off, certainly one cannot lie for profit, witness the recent prosecution of Elizabeth Holmes. Medicines cannot be falsely labeled, nor can foods. Threats against others are illegal, but rarely taken to the level of prosecution until another crime occurs where the threats can be evidentiary. (Unfortunate in my opinion.) Crimes cannot be conspired legally. And one cannot (until recently) proclaim something to be news which is a lie. Freedom of speech is vital to enable people to formulate thoughts, i.e., opinions, and people are entitled to make opinions, but if opinions are based on lies, then people are denied a rightful basis for opinion. If someone sells snake oil to cure cancer, well one is denied the opportunity to make an honest opinion. To tell people falsely that the 2020 election and to lie about what Bill Barr called bullshit evidence, presents false information that becomes true to those who may be susceptible or want the false information to be true develops opinions based on mistruths that mislead people into formulating false ideologies based on Barr’s bullshit that is the basis of the facts they can proclaim as truths that formulated their opinion. One may not make false claims and the government is responsible for insuring that freedom of speech enables people to formulate opinions that are based on valid, or verifiable speech content.
These justices are themselves basing their decisions falsely to favor their particular ideology (opinion) on what they think should be. The problem with so many of these recent court decisions is not that they deny rights that earlier courts have said people are entitled to, it is not that many are not popular. It is that they are unjudicious.
The judiciary establishes the best law, via precedent from the past, to determine the most just manner to maintain an orderly society. If the judiciary uses its authority to create chaos rather than calm, then that is unjust…and creating chaos, or misleading people falsely is itself, criminal activity. It is not that precedent can never be altered, but is always altered from the perspective of the present and how to best serve justice today. Justice cannot return the clock. If the second amendment says people can bear arms and that is set in concrete (even though I believe the court has misinterpreted the meaning and the reasoning for the amendment) then it must also be people can only bear the arms that were available when it was passed, which were one-shot weapons. They can’t have it two ways and they create chaos.when they interpret it two ways.
2024 will not be an election to restore the old institutions as Biden would have it, voters vote on what they are currently experiencing and if they are currently feeling the government has lost control…
Biden needs to go before the nation tomorrow and take strong action. Why take Doughty’s ruling to the court and create more chaos? Biden needs to suspend several members of the judiciary, including some members of the court. Well why does he have the right? Because the constitution does not say he can’t. The constitution says he can appoint federal judges with the senate approval. It says congress can impeach judges. It does not say they have life-time tenure, it does not say they can encourage chaos with their decisions and create unjustice, it does not say they cannot be fired.
But I’m not suggesting firing them, I am suggesting he suspends them and appoints a judicial review board to investigate any “decisions” not based on justness. He should suspend them from making judicial decisions until the board he appoints qualifies those decisions as legitimate advancements of the common law. If this is to be a nation of laws, then he can only do so if the justices do not advance chaos against law.