Murthy Murthy me...Things ain't what they used to be...

The U.S. Supreme Court ought to start publishing their rulings on toilet paper.

When they get things right, it's only by accident. Last week, we discussed the court's recent ruling that rightly requires investors in foreign corporations to pay taxes like everyone else, but that was one of very few constitutionally sound decisions they've made lately. Even then, I think they only got it right because they happened to stumble into it. Regarding almost everything else these days, they just completely ignore elementary law that we learned in 7th grade civics class.

Their ruling this week in Murthy v. Missouri is one of the most outrageously bad decisions in the court's history. This case was prompted by the Biden administration colluding with social media sites to censor content such as COVID "misinformation." Much of the "misinformation" that was censored was actually true. The Twitter Files prove this.

It is folly to characterize those who fought the White House on this as "right-wing." If you support government censorship like this, you're not a progressive. Period. This is what right-wing dictatorships do. You expect to see something like this under totalitarian butchers like Emmanuel Macron. You don't expect to see it in a democracy. Yet the whiny nerds at Vox produced a lengthy article attacking judges who opposed this censorship as "right-wing."

That was even after right-wing Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the Supreme Court opinion in Murthy v. Missouri that allows this censorship. Vox is siding with some of the most right-wing Justices in history, yet is accusing everyone else of being "right-wing." Vox also laughably claimed that those who opposed the censorship were actually suppressing the White House's free speech rights - not the other way around. Vox also said the First Amendment does not bar the government from asking social media sites to remove content. Yes it does, you idiots.

This ruling came even after every lower court - without exception - ruled against this suppression of free speech.

What's the Supreme Court's "reasoning"? They said it was because those who fought against this censorship lacked standing, but as hard as we try, we cannot follow this contorted line of thinking. In fact, those who were censored were no longer the plaintiffs by the time the case reached the Supremes. The case started out as Missouri v. Biden but was later retitled as Murthy v. Missouri. So the actual plaintiff was Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, who the victims were fighting against. If the case was thrown out, it should have been because Murthy lacked standing to sue those who were censored.

The Supreme Court is a rogue court. There are some issues where the Constitution leaves absolutely no wiggle room. This is one of them. The rights listed in the Bill of Rights were not created by people. They are natural rights. That's what "inalienable rights" means. Every current member of the Supreme Court has at some point recently placed either political alliances or weird legal theories ahead of real law.

But in this constitutional republic, real law takes precedence over the bizarre opinions of a few unelected dictators in black robes. Some things in the Constitution have to be interpreted, but there is no ambiguity that such government collusion with social networking sites violates free speech. Absolutely zero. The Supremes' ruling in Murthy v. Missouri is George W. Bush-level stuff.