Chief Justice Roberts Thinks Coercion by Individual Branches of Government is not Government Coercion? Pardon US?
"It’s not monolithic... That has to dilute the concept of coercion significantly. Doesn’t it?"
What happens to simple logic and individual rights when people get into the dirt of what Biden et al. did to the American public with censorship?
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. stated that because the federal government has numerous agencies that do not always speak with a single voice, coercion by government officials is not coercion.
“It’s not monolithic,” he said in an exchange with the attorney representing Louisiana. “That has to dilute the concept of coercion significantly. Doesn’t it?”
So, if anyone working for the US Government working in the capacity of their job coerces any citizen, it’s not coercion? What, are they some new kind of royalty?
Has Roberts never heard of a prohibited personnel practice (PPP)?
Let’s see.. there’s TITLE 5…
There’s the Hatch Act of 1939; under that law, Federal employees are prohibited from using their position or title to coerce or induce another person to provide a benefit. This includes subordinates, friends, relatives, and other nongovernmental associates.
The Hatch Act of 1939 protects federal employees from political coercion in the workplace. The law also ensures that federal programs are nonpartisan and that employees are promoted based on merit.
Today, it is a PPP under this statute for a Federal official to coerce any applicant or employee to engage in political activity, or to retaliate against such individuals based on partisan politics. The Hatch Act of 1939 contains many similar prohibitions, and carries severe penalties. See 5 U.S.C. § 7321 – 7326.
As I’ve said - we have to press charges against INDIVIDUALS.
INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTABILITY is how you get it done.
CONTEXT: Supreme Court likely to reject limits on government, social media contact - The Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/18/supreme-court-social-media-free-speech-biden/
FIND LAW COURSES AND COURSES RELATED TO LAW AT IPAK-EDU.
"Shall not be abridged..." That's clear and about as absolute as can be.
Sophistry, essentially lawfare. This is how Roberts is going to pretend 1st Amendment not affected.
The Deep State got to him.
We're in the midst of the FedSurrection. Well, maybe the consolidation phase.
The entire reason for the constitution is to place limits on government. If a person in government has a position of authority, and uses that authority to coerce someone, that is government coercion. Why are justices at the very pinnacle of the court system incapable of this simple exercise of logic?