Alito grants temporary pause on injunction
Bob Unruh
WND News Center
President Joe Biden has been given another brief respite from a federal court crackdown on his scheming with social media companies to censor the ideas he dislikes.
The Daily Caller News Foundation revealed that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito on Friday granted another short stay.
It, for now, blocks an injunction that will halt Biden from “encouraging” social media companies to censor speech.
It was confirmed during Biden’s administration, and especially during election periods, that Biden’s bureaucrats had multiple channels to various foundations. They would complain to those foundations about ideas he refused to tolerate, and then those foundations would complain to social media corporations until those comments were censored.
It was set up like this because the Biden administration directly censoring ideas violates the Constitution.
Alito’s decision blocks, temporarily, the injunction originally issued by District of Louisiana Judge Terry A. Doughty. The new deadline is October 20.
The justices now have more time to consider the Biden administration’s request for a longer stay on the injunction and to take up the case.
Doughty’s original order found Biden’s plan akin to an “Orwellian Ministry of Truth.”
Reuters reported the case was launched by the Republican attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana and a group of social media users.
They accused federal officials of unlawfully helping suppress conservative-leaning speech on major social media platforms, such as Meta’s Facebook, Alphabet’s YouTube and X, formerly called Twitter.
Democrats repeatedly have called for more censorship of speech with which they disagree. They claim to be opposing “misinformation,” “disinformation” and “malinformation,” but essentially their targets are ideas that do not align with their party’s talking points.
The subjects of that “information” have ranged from election fraud and faulty COVID “vaccines” to Biden family corruption and more.
Just days earlier, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had expanded it’s original decision to allow Doughty’s injunction to stand, adding the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to the preliminary injunction in Missouri v. Biden.
Other agencies already barred from the censorship campaigns include the White House, the Surgeon General’s office, CDC and FBI.
Also read:
- Letter: ‘One year later, a withheld text message points to perjury’
Clark County resident Rob Anderson argues a previously undisclosed text message tied to a C-TRAN board dispute raises questions about sworn statements and public meeting rules. - Opinion: It’s not just the increased taxes that are driving businesses away
Mark Harmsworth of the Washington Policy Center argues taxes, workforce challenges and economic uncertainty are driving businesses to relocate outside Washington. - Opinion: There is no such thing as a ‘free’ lunch, and an income tax isn’t more palatable because it offers one
Elizabeth New of the Washington Policy Center argues the proposed Washington income tax and universal school meals policy reflect a broader state spending problem - Battle Ground the site of Busy Bee Craft Fair March 21
Battle Ground will host the Busy Bee Craft Fair on March 21, bringing dozens of local artisans and crafters together for a free community event at the Battle Ground Event Center. - State of the City: Vancouver mayor promotes arts and culture in her annual address
Vancouver Mayor Anne McEnerny-Ogle highlighted arts initiatives, public safety investments and city development projects during her annual State of the City address. - Clark College to present Choral Concerts
Clark College choirs will perform two winter concerts in Vancouver this week, featuring the Treble Ensemble, Chorale and Concert Choir under the direction of Dr. Jacob Funk. - VIDEO: WA House pulls an all-nighter as income tax debate continues
Washington House lawmakers debated Senate Bill 6346 through the night as Republicans proposed amendments and raised concerns about economic impacts and constitutional questions.
