Quo Vadis GOP?

[grumbler]

National Guardsman are just private citizens in another state, unless they have been federalized.

[Oexmelin]

While sending 50 troops is obviously just a token political gesture, I feel having this paid by a partisan donor might be a bad precedent?

Don't fret. There's absolutely nothing to be worried about. Apparently.

[Eddie Teach]

National Guardsman are just private citizens in another state, unless they have been federalized.

Can't the governor of the state they're sent to deputize them?

[grumbler]

National Guardsman are just private citizens in another state, unless they have been federalized.

Can't the governor of the state they're sent to deputize them?

Yes, but then they aren't National Guardsmen any more, they are deputies in the state that they are in, no different than if they were just fifty random out-of-state dudes the governor deputized.

[Berkut]

Thank god South Dakota was able to come to the rescue of poor little old Texas!

[Syt]

GOP adjacent. Hobby Lobby had these ads in the papers for 4th of July.



Full size: https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/stltoday.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/classifieds/7/60/7607e13b-ed18-528d-ba9d-c2dc6dce0249/60d24f5ecd178.preview.jpg

[The Brain]

I read the section on Congress but was very disappointed.

[The Minsky Moment]

The nation referred to in Psalm 33 was the Kingdom of Judah.  The fate of that state is not one I would wish on others, and one that I would hope my own nation would avoid.

[Duque de Bragança]

The nation referred to in Psalm 33 was the Kingdom of Judah.  The fate of that state is not one I would wish on others, and one that I would hope my own nation would avoid.

Good one.

[garbon]

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/561847-trump-files-lawsuit-against-facebook-twitter-and-google

Trump files lawsuit against Facebook, Twitter and Google

Former President Trump is leading a class-action lawsuit against Facebook, Twitter and Google, as well as their CEOs, over allegations of censorship after the companies took action to ban and suspend his accounts.

"Our case will prove this censorship is unlawful, it's unconstitutional and it's completely un-American," Trump said Wednesday from his golf club in Bedminster, N.J.

The legal action comes after the former president was permanently banned from Twitter and suspended from Facebook for at least two years over posts made in response to the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol.

Spokespeople for Twitter and Facebook declined to comment. A spokesperson for Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Florida.

Trump said it will be the first of "numerous" other lawsuits aimed at holding "Big Tech" accountable.

The lawsuit is backed by the America First Policy Institute, a nonprofit focused on promoting the former president's policies.

The complaints argue the platforms have "increasingly engaged in impermissible censorship resulting from threatened legislative action, a misguided reliance upon Section 230."

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is a controversial provision that gives platforms a legal liability shield over content posted on their platform by third parties. Trump also sought to repeal Section 230 during his time in office.

Trump said Wednesday the lawsuit will aim to "at a very minimum" change the protections platforms have under Section 230, and "at a maximum" take it away.

The complaint argues the platforms threaten "potentially every citizen's right to free speech."

Similar GOP-led efforts to prohibit social media companies from enforcing their policies against politicians have been blocked by courts, most recently by a judge blocking a Florida law. 

Tech industry groups have pushed back on such efforts.

Chamber of Progress, a tech group that lists Facebook and Twitter among its corporate partners, slammed Trump's suit against the CEOs on Wednesday.

"Right-wing extremists are turning to the courts because their own platforms have collapsed after becoming anything-goes dumping grounds for hate, hoaxes, and pornography," said Chamber of Progress CEO Adam Kovacevich. "Now they want to turn Facebook and Twitter into another cesspool for extremism."

Paul Barrett, deputy director of the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights, said Trump's lawsuit is "DOA" and that the former president "has the First Amendment argument exactly wrong."

"The First Amendment applies to government censorship or speech regulation. It does not stop private sector corporations from regulating content on their platforms. In fact, Facebook and Twitter themselves have a First Amendment free speech right to determine what speech their platforms project and amplify—and that right includes excluding speakers who incite violence, as Trump did in connection with the January 6 Capitol insurrection," Barrett said in a statement.

Barrett was co-author of a February report that determined there is a lack of evidence to support claims that social media companies are engaging in anti-conservative censorship.

The legal fight is playing out at the state level as well.

Two tech trade groups, NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association, recently sued Florida over a law that would have fined companies for kicking politicians off their platforms. The group argued the law was a violation of First Amendment rights.

The bill, which was signed into law by Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, was recently blocked by a judge who ruled that it was unconstitutional.

Texas lawmakers tried passing a similar bill in the state legislature, but it has not passed in the state House.

[Barrister]

And he's already fundraising based on the lawsuit.

[Jacob]

And he's already fundraising based on the lawsuit.

That's probably the primary motive.

[Darth Wagtaros]

And he's already fundraising based on the lawsuit.

That's probably the primary motive.

There is no probably about it.

[The Minsky Moment]

A basic concept in First Amendment law is that the First Amendment restricts state action not private parties.

The theory of Trump's complaint is that Facebook was "acting in concert" with the CDC to restrict information about COVID.  That's the state action "hook" it is trying to use to ground the First Amendment claim.

The factual basis for "acting in concert" theory is a couple of emails where Zuckerberg asks Fauci to post an informational video about COVID on Facebook and Fauci says "sure". The complaint also alleges the Facebook considered information and advice from "public health experts" in deciding whether to take down false or misleading claims about hydroxychloroquine.

There are many, many problems with these allegations but one striking aspect is that the "government actors" who were allegedly acting in concert with the Defendant were all agents for the then President, i.e. the Plaintiff.  Fauci was hired by Trump was in charge of Trump's task force when the alleged collusion occurred.

[The Minsky Moment]

I always find it interesting to see what lawyers Trump is hiring for his cases, especially given the reputational baggage that he brings.

The Florida firm that signed the complaint is a small (6 lawyer) firm specializing in insurance litigation.
There are 5 supporting lawyers from a 30 lawyer firm in Greenwich, CT that specializes in real estate and personal injury litigation.
Also on the complaint are: John Coale, a long-retired lawyer known for his work in toxic tort and product liability litigation, his marriage to Greta van Susteren, and his membership in the Church of Scientology.
And Frank Dudenhefer, a Louisiana-based personal injury and toxic tort attorney.

These appear to be legit attorneys with some competence in there area of practice, but it is notable that none of them have a background in constitutional or administrative litigation.