Thank you for this clear explanation; I had not been able to understand what this ruling meant by reading other articles about it, but now I think I get it. Thanks again!
If censorship is allowed to continue then these are unlawful decisions equivalent to treason against the United States of America and its citizens who's rights are clearly spelled out that they are not given by the State, but innate. The courts who are not adhering to the principals laid out in The Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights will therefore have the people of this nation question their authority at all levels as they have abandoned the obligation and oath they are OBLIGATED to embody.
I agree with Alito's dissent, but I wish you had outlined why he was outvoted by the other Supremes. Maybe you did and I missed it. Whot would be the rationale from leaving RFK out of it?
Excellent article and summary of Murthy v. Missouri. Disappointing that RFK, Jr., was not included as a party in the appeal.
Thank you for this clear explanation; I had not been able to understand what this ruling meant by reading other articles about it, but now I think I get it. Thanks again!
If censorship is allowed to continue then these are unlawful decisions equivalent to treason against the United States of America and its citizens who's rights are clearly spelled out that they are not given by the State, but innate. The courts who are not adhering to the principals laid out in The Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights will therefore have the people of this nation question their authority at all levels as they have abandoned the obligation and oath they are OBLIGATED to embody.
Gayle Wells says it Best!
I agree with Alito's dissent, but I wish you had outlined why he was outvoted by the other Supremes. Maybe you did and I missed it. Whot would be the rationale from leaving RFK out of it?
The majority rejected his intervention without comment.