Notice: Function _load_textdomain_just_in_time was called incorrectly. Translation loading for the mfn-opts domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /nas/content/live/brownpelican/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114
Free Speech Depends On SCOTUS Rejecting The Government’s Censorship Excuses In Murthy v. Missouri, by Scott Street – Brown Pelican Society of Lousiana

Free Speech Depends On SCOTUS Rejecting The Government’s Censorship Excuses In Murthy v. Missouri, by Scott Street

The Catholic Answer to the Longing for ‘Wellness’, by Rebecca Wilson
March 14, 2024
The Bachall Isu—The Crozier of St. Patrick, by Phillip Campbell
March 15, 2024

Panorama of the west facade of United States Supreme Court Building at dusk in Washington, D.C., USA. 10 October 2011. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. Attribution: Joe Ravi. You are free: to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work ....

By Scott Street, The Federalist, March 15, 2024

Missouri v. Biden, or Murthy v. Missouri, is one of the most interesting cases in Supreme Court history and will hinge on three critical questions.

On July 4, 2023, Louisiana-based federal Judge Terry Doughty issued a historic decision in the censorship case then called Missouri v. Biden (the case was filed by two state attorneys general, including Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, who now sits in the U.S. Senate). The decisions made news not just for the result and the date it was issued, but for the importance Doughty showed to the underlying issue.

In fact, Doughty’s opinion echoed the lofty rhetoric of the great federal court decisions issued during the civil rights era. But the political dynamic had flipped. Instead of liberal federal judges siding with the federal government to strike down prejudiced state and local laws, as in the ’50s and ’60s, here we had a conservative judge siding with local officials and private citizens against a federal bureaucracy run by the Democrat Party. …