Amy Coney Barrett stabbed Trump in the back with this horrible defeat

Amy Coney Barrett was one of Donald Trump’s three Supreme Court Justice nominees.

But she found an awful way to repay him.

And Amy Coney Barrett stabbed Trump in the back with this horrible defeat.

Supreme Court sides with Biden censorship regime

The Supreme Court tossed a challenge to the Biden administration pressuring social media companies to censor conservatives on the grounds that the state of Missouri and five plaintiffs lacked standing.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the opinion allowing the Biden administration to censor content online claiming that the plaintiffs couldn’t prove a pressure campaign on the part of the government and that they didn’t name social media companies as plaintiffs in their lawsuit.

“The plaintiffs rely on allegations of past Government censorship as evidence that future censorship is likely,” Barrett wrote. 

“But they fail, by and large, to link their past social-media restrictions to the defendants’ communications with the platforms. Thus, the events of the past do little to help any of the plaintiffs establish standing to seek an injunction to prevent future harms,” Barrett added.

Barrett’s opinion also left open the idea that there are six votes on the court to uphold ideological censorship by Big Tech companies because they are private companies.

Conservatives – like Clarence Thomas – argued Facebook, X, and Instagram are common carries more akin to the phone company, and that AT&T isn’t allowed to turn off your phone because they don’t like the content of your phone calls.

An obvious error

The Biden administration clearly pressured social media companies to censor conservative critics of its COVID mandates and vaccine policies.

Biden officials created an enemies list of accounts they claimed spread “misinformation” – i.e. facts that contradicted the administration’s support for COVID restrictions and forcing Americans to take the vaccine – that Facebook needed to censor.

And in March 2021 White House director of digital strategy Rob Flaherty emailed Facebook demanding the platform censor more “borderline content.”

“We are gravely concerned that your service is one of the top drivers of vaccine hesitancy – period,” Flaherty added.

Justice Samuel Alito authored a strong dissent taking the majority to task by encouraging more censorship by punting on this case.

Alito wrote that the majority opinion “permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think.”

“It was blatantly unconstitutional, and the country may come to regret the Court’s failure to say so,” Alito added.

This case will now allow the Biden administration to jawbone social media companies into censoring negative stories.

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre is already claiming videos showing Biden acting senile are “cheap fakes.”

Thanks to this decision, Big Tech can now censor those videos at the suggestion of the Biden campaign.