Hi everyone, I have just recorded my first thoughts on the Murthy v. Missouri case, which involves the foundational First Amendment rights of Americans. I delve into the history of the case and the concerns about the Biden administration’s censorship regime. Also, I go into some detail about the preliminary injunction and Judge Terry Doughty's ruling, as well as the appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
I have been following this fervently from South Africa. This is not only important to Americans, but to all of us who have been throttled, gaslit, and derided for daring to question the prevailing narratives - most especially the iatrogenic horrors and ethical travesties that have been unfolding since 2020.
Thank you for your bravery, principled stand, and perseverance. From the bottom of my heart.
Thank you for the update! I appreciate all that you do.
I heard a little bit of the oral arguments yesterday. I was shocked to hear the justices say things like: "Necessary in a once in a lifetime pandemic" or "speech protesting war could affect citizens safety" (not exact quotes).
I see this as a test of whether the Supreme Court is corrupt or not. The case has gone through many courts and justices over the year or so it took to hear the case. It is not a fluke that it was victorious.
My thoughts on the matter:
1) In times of a pandemic (no matter how serious or trivial) it is important to hear ALL voices. It is not the time to silence anyone.
2) The government has stopped enforcing anti-trust laws and as a result we have many mega-corporations that should not exist. There is no viable alternative to facebook or twitter for people to talk. When you have monopolies like this, they are similar to utilities and need to be regulated as such. Not in a way that censors people, but enforces our bill of rights through those companies as well as government. They are using the excuse that it is a private company and therefore immune to the bill of rights. They should not be able to censor people on their own or at the request of the government. They also should not be able to violate any of the other amendments. (invasion of privacy for example).
3) When the discussion pertains to the government, it has been censored. That is the most important speech that needs to be preserved. It is criticism of the government that is the heart of the 1st amendment.
4) The government and/or the social media companies or mainstream media are not the arbiters of truth yet they are censoring experts that are far more qualified than any to speak.
5) The speech that is being restricted is a voice that can save lives. It is so important that to censor it, you are effectively killing people due to deceptive 'knowledge'.
6) They are using the excuse that someone could cause panic speech to censor the worlds expert on the topic.
7) This isn't just about the pandemic (though the standing issue early on dropped other claims). The Jan 6th denial of the peoples voice resulted in an election that could not ever be verified (chain of custody was last with mailin ballots). If we were able to have a nation wide discussion it would have resulted in better elections in the future rather than peaceful citizens going to jail for lies told by the committee (partial videos showed a distorted view). War in Ukraine can't be protested or questioned. The media won't cover it. Social media will ban it. Google will block searches. We have lost our voice and control over our government.
8) We have to realize that Justice Jackson could not answer the question "what is a woman" in her confirmation hearing. That should tell us how much we should trust her statements. I wish there was some sort of recourse for such an unqualified justice. I wish there was some way to shame them for their stupidity. That avenue used to go through the media which we have lost.
We have lost our voice and many don't realize it yet.
It's even simpler than that. The SCOTUS job is to apply the Constitution to the case in front of them. Not to question if the Constitution is correct or to argue that it shouldn't be applied under special circumstances. Kind of like if you call a plumber, their job is to fix your sink, not to feed your cat or repaint your walls because they believe it's more important. And the arguments against the case could only come from the First Amendment itself, for example, the case doesn't demonstrate government coercion.
Some justices already demonstrated during COVID an attitude not caring about the Constitution. I wouldn't call them corrupt but the process elevating wokeness to high positions in judiciary is corrupt.
Yes. Unfortunately. Now I think we know why Scalia (strict constitutional justice) was found dead on his bed with a pillow over his face. No autopsy done.
Another thing that struck me is that if the government is allowed to censor during an emergency, all it has to do in order to censor, is declare an emergency. And then censor any opposition to the censorship.
I listened to the hearing and was appalled. The young lawyer who represented you and the other plaintiffs is clearly sharp but the government lawyer was clearer. I sensed that the govt lawyer knew which way the justices were already leaning. This case needed better press coverage to pressure the court to do the right thing because We the People are watching and are counting on them to uphold our rights.
This SCOTU is the least competent indicative of our failing society with DEI takeover to enshrine their ideology over meritocracy.
On the conservative side there are real corruption- bribery issues which call credibility into question. This is of the guilty justices own doing, and when caught,, not immediately admitting it and apologizing and implementing VERY strict anti bribery ethical rules. Maybe even resign in shame
There is no truly brilliant legal mind on that court, that exudes a passion for what our country was built on, encyclopedic knowledge of law and legal history and common sense to do what is right for the citizenry.
Thank you for standing up for all of us against this tyrannical regime. Feel awful about what happened to you and other leading experts, however, can’t think of anyone who is more respected, competent and revered to represent us.
I think reader's of Jay's substack will probably have seen this already, but in case you haven't, El Gato Malo has a marvelous, though discouraging, write-up of the arguments yesterday.
Jay, thank you for this very clear and understandable explanation and I agree 1000%. One concern I have had throughout this period on this and other SCt cases is that none of the justices seem to read any alternative media (perhaps Thomas and Alito get it indirectly). And their law clerks are probably predominantly from the conformist east and west coast law schools. It is probably total news to them that there was even any doubt about the lockdowns and vaccines. Was there any effort by your side to get through to them on that?? In a way this is a catch 22 – given that they themselves received tailored, censored information, they simply can’t believe the magnitude of the deceit.
Whatever captured all of our governments, media companies, social media companies, educational systems, health systems, employers and who knows what else... Why do we think it didn't capture the courts and the judges?
To me, it looks like a whole system of laws, rules, regulations, etc. that only exist to benefit the ones at the very top.
Let's say you want to escape their financial control, invent crypto and do your own thing - boom, they regulate you and or shut you down. Now you want to protest the nonsense happening, boom, they deploy the police to shut you down. You take a different route and sue them, boom, the judge shuts you down.
We all think and act inside a system that was carefully crafted to control us and never let us win, while giving us the illusion that we have all this power and all these options to fight back. But we don't. Not as long as we play by their rules, that we have been taught since birth.
Take a step back and look at this whole system. It is a highly complex and complicated system (by design). But looking at it long enough, you will discover patterns, then you start seeing connections, then you see where it all leads to. There is only one way the ultimate benefits travel and that is up to the very top.
Jay, I may be wrong about this, but I think you misspoke when you provided the example of Parler. Parler was not taken out of the App Store in the run up to the 2020 election. I believe Parler was shut down by Amazon after the capitol riot. I suspect Amazon would've done this with or without government coercion. They shut them down within a couple of days of the riot, and it was still pretty unclear what had happened.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and perspective. So much hangs in the balance. Whatever you do, don’t give up or lose hope. You (and we) are fighting the right fight. It’s a marathon, as they say, not a sprint. And you’re doing great Dr. B.
This is happening in all WEF COUNTRIES...look at Canada's Bill C63....... censorship and freedom of speech is the only way these "dictators" will be able to stay in power.... READ THIS, PLS...
Canadian, Irish, French Government-Attempted Speech Regulations Appear Like Desperate Censorship Power Plays
Nothing from the Supreme Court not a decision, an opinion or it’s very existence is legitimate. Nor is this bullshit tort claim. Sedition, incitement nor libel fall within the purview of the first amendment. Also, the first amendment does not apply to private corporations with their own terms of service. the government contacting such corporations insisting they follow and apply those terms equally is certainly not censorship or some conspiracy to advocate any point of you. You fucking snowflakes are truly a parody of yourselves
The companies were applying their terms of service fairly until the government interfered to coerce the companies to censor. All was done in secret. The only reason we know exactly what the government did is because of this lawsuit that forced discovery.
No. That’s simply not true that’s the entire point and causation of the interactions. Go the fuck away. Your intentional disingenuous bullshit is not appreciated. No wonder your mother is so fucking disappointed.
Even if I tried, I always forget you can’t edit something already posted in this sub space. Eat a bag of dicks. To call you and agitprop tool would be insulting agitprop tools
Which reminds me, you better have the tags on those mattresses because my girlfriends plumbers cousins sister is a mattress tag cop. If not,one phone call, and you’ll be sleeping on the floor….
Grammar cop is the refuge of losers, liars and sock puppet fellation tools. I am actually inside of a climate controlled John Deere tractor right now. Making soil. If you think I’m going to take the time to proofread or edit anything for you and beheaded mouth breathing dumb fucks, you are sadly mistaken.
Take heart. I once served as a military judge. I saw as my job to be circumspect and critical of arguments before retiring to consider the presented facts. Apply the law. Develop a judgment. Do not however in the courtroom, give false clue so as to either dispirit or embolden the parties from, or in apparent favor of, their arguments.. ie Don't "spill the beans." Let the parties do that. They will.
As you said, the government pled for the right to suspend the Constitution whenever "they" think they have an emergency, even without declaring martial law. So, they "spilled the beans" as to intent.
Aa to martial law, it means military law. There is no constitutional authority for the President to unilaterally declare martial law. He is the Commander-In-Chief of the military, not Commander-In-Chief of the country.
Anyway, I cannot see the Supremes determining that the Executive can set aside the Constitution in order to achieve the prevention of perceived threats.
I have been following this fervently from South Africa. This is not only important to Americans, but to all of us who have been throttled, gaslit, and derided for daring to question the prevailing narratives - most especially the iatrogenic horrors and ethical travesties that have been unfolding since 2020.
Thank you for your bravery, principled stand, and perseverance. From the bottom of my heart.
Thank you for the update! I appreciate all that you do.
I heard a little bit of the oral arguments yesterday. I was shocked to hear the justices say things like: "Necessary in a once in a lifetime pandemic" or "speech protesting war could affect citizens safety" (not exact quotes).
I see this as a test of whether the Supreme Court is corrupt or not. The case has gone through many courts and justices over the year or so it took to hear the case. It is not a fluke that it was victorious.
My thoughts on the matter:
1) In times of a pandemic (no matter how serious or trivial) it is important to hear ALL voices. It is not the time to silence anyone.
2) The government has stopped enforcing anti-trust laws and as a result we have many mega-corporations that should not exist. There is no viable alternative to facebook or twitter for people to talk. When you have monopolies like this, they are similar to utilities and need to be regulated as such. Not in a way that censors people, but enforces our bill of rights through those companies as well as government. They are using the excuse that it is a private company and therefore immune to the bill of rights. They should not be able to censor people on their own or at the request of the government. They also should not be able to violate any of the other amendments. (invasion of privacy for example).
3) When the discussion pertains to the government, it has been censored. That is the most important speech that needs to be preserved. It is criticism of the government that is the heart of the 1st amendment.
4) The government and/or the social media companies or mainstream media are not the arbiters of truth yet they are censoring experts that are far more qualified than any to speak.
5) The speech that is being restricted is a voice that can save lives. It is so important that to censor it, you are effectively killing people due to deceptive 'knowledge'.
6) They are using the excuse that someone could cause panic speech to censor the worlds expert on the topic.
7) This isn't just about the pandemic (though the standing issue early on dropped other claims). The Jan 6th denial of the peoples voice resulted in an election that could not ever be verified (chain of custody was last with mailin ballots). If we were able to have a nation wide discussion it would have resulted in better elections in the future rather than peaceful citizens going to jail for lies told by the committee (partial videos showed a distorted view). War in Ukraine can't be protested or questioned. The media won't cover it. Social media will ban it. Google will block searches. We have lost our voice and control over our government.
8) We have to realize that Justice Jackson could not answer the question "what is a woman" in her confirmation hearing. That should tell us how much we should trust her statements. I wish there was some sort of recourse for such an unqualified justice. I wish there was some way to shame them for their stupidity. That avenue used to go through the media which we have lost.
We have lost our voice and many don't realize it yet.
It's even simpler than that. The SCOTUS job is to apply the Constitution to the case in front of them. Not to question if the Constitution is correct or to argue that it shouldn't be applied under special circumstances. Kind of like if you call a plumber, their job is to fix your sink, not to feed your cat or repaint your walls because they believe it's more important. And the arguments against the case could only come from the First Amendment itself, for example, the case doesn't demonstrate government coercion.
Some justices already demonstrated during COVID an attitude not caring about the Constitution. I wouldn't call them corrupt but the process elevating wokeness to high positions in judiciary is corrupt.
Yes. Unfortunately. Now I think we know why Scalia (strict constitutional justice) was found dead on his bed with a pillow over his face. No autopsy done.
Here is an article I just wrote on the subject.
https://open.substack.com/pub/mikemyhre/p/we-have-lost-our-voice?r=17c67d&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
Jay, thanks for the update!
Another thing that struck me is that if the government is allowed to censor during an emergency, all it has to do in order to censor, is declare an emergency. And then censor any opposition to the censorship.
Hitler took over Germany during an "emergency".
I listened to the hearing and was appalled. The young lawyer who represented you and the other plaintiffs is clearly sharp but the government lawyer was clearer. I sensed that the govt lawyer knew which way the justices were already leaning. This case needed better press coverage to pressure the court to do the right thing because We the People are watching and are counting on them to uphold our rights.
This SCOTU is the least competent indicative of our failing society with DEI takeover to enshrine their ideology over meritocracy.
On the conservative side there are real corruption- bribery issues which call credibility into question. This is of the guilty justices own doing, and when caught,, not immediately admitting it and apologizing and implementing VERY strict anti bribery ethical rules. Maybe even resign in shame
There is no truly brilliant legal mind on that court, that exudes a passion for what our country was built on, encyclopedic knowledge of law and legal history and common sense to do what is right for the citizenry.
Thank you for standing up for all of us against this tyrannical regime. Feel awful about what happened to you and other leading experts, however, can’t think of anyone who is more respected, competent and revered to represent us.
I think reader's of Jay's substack will probably have seen this already, but in case you haven't, El Gato Malo has a marvelous, though discouraging, write-up of the arguments yesterday.
https://open.substack.com/pub/boriquagato/p/ketanji-brown-and-the-template-of?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=rp6n5
Thank you for the link to this terrific analysis of what’s at stake and what we witnessed in that court!
Too bad your voice and reasoned expose wasn’t being spoken to the Justices‼️ Very persuasive
Jay, thank you for this very clear and understandable explanation and I agree 1000%. One concern I have had throughout this period on this and other SCt cases is that none of the justices seem to read any alternative media (perhaps Thomas and Alito get it indirectly). And their law clerks are probably predominantly from the conformist east and west coast law schools. It is probably total news to them that there was even any doubt about the lockdowns and vaccines. Was there any effort by your side to get through to them on that?? In a way this is a catch 22 – given that they themselves received tailored, censored information, they simply can’t believe the magnitude of the deceit.
Totally agree.
I wonder how bad the beltway bubble is.
But in any event, not understanding that the first amendment is meant to constrain the government is different problem altogether.
Excellent summary and thank you for your exemplary patriotism Jay.
This is a thought and concern at the same time.
Whatever captured all of our governments, media companies, social media companies, educational systems, health systems, employers and who knows what else... Why do we think it didn't capture the courts and the judges?
To me, it looks like a whole system of laws, rules, regulations, etc. that only exist to benefit the ones at the very top.
Let's say you want to escape their financial control, invent crypto and do your own thing - boom, they regulate you and or shut you down. Now you want to protest the nonsense happening, boom, they deploy the police to shut you down. You take a different route and sue them, boom, the judge shuts you down.
We all think and act inside a system that was carefully crafted to control us and never let us win, while giving us the illusion that we have all this power and all these options to fight back. But we don't. Not as long as we play by their rules, that we have been taught since birth.
Take a step back and look at this whole system. It is a highly complex and complicated system (by design). But looking at it long enough, you will discover patterns, then you start seeing connections, then you see where it all leads to. There is only one way the ultimate benefits travel and that is up to the very top.
Great summary. What's our bug-out country?
It would be much easier to send certain people out of this country. ;-)
Jay, I may be wrong about this, but I think you misspoke when you provided the example of Parler. Parler was not taken out of the App Store in the run up to the 2020 election. I believe Parler was shut down by Amazon after the capitol riot. I suspect Amazon would've done this with or without government coercion. They shut them down within a couple of days of the riot, and it was still pretty unclear what had happened.
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/amazon-suspends-hosting-parler-its-servers-citing-violent-content-n1253648
glenn greenwald covered this story closely, I believe your understanding is correct.
parler was deplatformed by firms like amazon refusing to host it on their servers
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and perspective. So much hangs in the balance. Whatever you do, don’t give up or lose hope. You (and we) are fighting the right fight. It’s a marathon, as they say, not a sprint. And you’re doing great Dr. B.
This is happening in all WEF COUNTRIES...look at Canada's Bill C63....... censorship and freedom of speech is the only way these "dictators" will be able to stay in power.... READ THIS, PLS...
Canadian, Irish, French Government-Attempted Speech Regulations Appear Like Desperate Censorship Power Plays
https://jeffereyjaxen.substack.com/p/canadian-irish-french-government
Nothing from the Supreme Court not a decision, an opinion or it’s very existence is legitimate. Nor is this bullshit tort claim. Sedition, incitement nor libel fall within the purview of the first amendment. Also, the first amendment does not apply to private corporations with their own terms of service. the government contacting such corporations insisting they follow and apply those terms equally is certainly not censorship or some conspiracy to advocate any point of you. You fucking snowflakes are truly a parody of yourselves
No need to be insulting to Dr B.
The companies were applying their terms of service fairly until the government interfered to coerce the companies to censor. All was done in secret. The only reason we know exactly what the government did is because of this lawsuit that forced discovery.
No. That’s simply not true that’s the entire point and causation of the interactions. Go the fuck away. Your intentional disingenuous bullshit is not appreciated. No wonder your mother is so fucking disappointed.
But some snowflakes can both spell and proofread unlike yourself.
Just blocked him. Talk about rude and crass! Hudson isn’t worth your time to respond.
Same
Even if I tried, I always forget you can’t edit something already posted in this sub space. Eat a bag of dicks. To call you and agitprop tool would be insulting agitprop tools
Which reminds me, you better have the tags on those mattresses because my girlfriends plumbers cousins sister is a mattress tag cop. If not,one phone call, and you’ll be sleeping on the floor….
Grammar cop is the refuge of losers, liars and sock puppet fellation tools. I am actually inside of a climate controlled John Deere tractor right now. Making soil. If you think I’m going to take the time to proofread or edit anything for you and beheaded mouth breathing dumb fucks, you are sadly mistaken.
Making night soil to be accurate.
Ad hominem bullshit is all you got. Figures. Instant block you fake ass piece of shit
Take heart. I once served as a military judge. I saw as my job to be circumspect and critical of arguments before retiring to consider the presented facts. Apply the law. Develop a judgment. Do not however in the courtroom, give false clue so as to either dispirit or embolden the parties from, or in apparent favor of, their arguments.. ie Don't "spill the beans." Let the parties do that. They will.
As you said, the government pled for the right to suspend the Constitution whenever "they" think they have an emergency, even without declaring martial law. So, they "spilled the beans" as to intent.
Aa to martial law, it means military law. There is no constitutional authority for the President to unilaterally declare martial law. He is the Commander-In-Chief of the military, not Commander-In-Chief of the country.
Anyway, I cannot see the Supremes determining that the Executive can set aside the Constitution in order to achieve the prevention of perceived threats.