This clears the way for the woke commie Leftist Biden Administration to continue putting federal government pressure on social networks businesses to monitor and control user posts.

In a 6-3 decision, Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Roberts signed up with the liberals or, need to I say, leftists. They declared that in Murthy v. Missouri, they had no standing and could not show substantial harm.

Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch, the true champs of conservative values, highly disagreed with the judgment, asserting that the administration’s actions were an ostentatious offense of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court ruled that the White House and federal companies, like the FBI, can request social media platforms to remove content about disinformation. According to CNN, this choice is viewed as a significant win for the Biden administration in an election year. 

Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett are not actively involved in combating what is perceived as a corrupt political group posing as the Uniparty. They have relatively aligned themselves with the influential woke Leftists who govern the nation.

 This writer stresses that history shows people have never voted themselves out of a communist revolution or relied on legal actions for rescue. However, millions of people have shot themselves out of a communist revolution. This case demonstrates that the courts are ineffective in stopping or halting the crime family that has our nation in its grip. 

Murthy v.Missouri has not been dismissed; instead, it has been sent back to Judge Daugherty in Louisiana for further examination and to establish legal standing. This writer is confident that Judge Daugherty, a Patriot Judge, will work to move the case forward. A future Trump Administration will utilize its power to prevent social network platforms from censoring conservative and Patriot media. The speaker suggests learning more analysis on the judgment at ispeakfortrump.com and thinks that Judge Daugherty, in addition to AG Bailey from Missouri and other fans, might be able to restore the case. The speaker acknowledges the function of social media platforms as part of the supposed crime family’s propaganda network. T

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the opinion on the ruling in a 6-3 bulk decision.

“To establish standing, the complainants need to demonstrate a substantial danger that, in the future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a government defendant and redressable by the injunction they look for,” Barrett wrote. “Because no plaintiff has brought that concern, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction.”

The Republican Attorneys General of Missouri and Louisiana accused the Biden administration of using informal methods to pressure and silence those with differing viewpoints, a strategy described as “jawboning.

According to reports, the FBI pressured social media platforms to eliminate specific content, labeling it as “foreign” even though US citizens developed it.

“The Court’s inaction renounces its duty, therefore enabling the oppressive strategies used in this case to serve as a precedent for future authorities looking to manipulate public discourse and determine what citizens can reveal, take in, and believe,” Alito argued in his dissenting viewpoint. “This result is really lamentable.”

He knocked the officials’ actions called in the claim as a blatant offense of the constitution, an attempt to strong-arm people, and a hazard to public safety.

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

In his dissent, which covered 34 pages, he thoroughly took a look at the specifics of the case to challenge the court’s findings that the complainants did not bring the case, and he also delved into the compound of their arguments.

“For months, high-ranking Government authorities placed relentless pressure on Facebook to reduce Americans’ free speech. Because the Court unjustifiably refuses to address this serious danger to the First Amendment, I respectfully dissent,” Alito said.

For readers wishing to fully understand this critical case, we suggest you visit this site, where a distinguished Patriot attorney gives a complete analysis. CLICK HERE