'The Single Dumbest 'Legal Take' of All Time': Charlie Kirk Calls for Supreme Court to Get Trump

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Back on Facebook

Staunch Donald Trump ally and right-wing activist Charlie Kirk responded to the Facebook Oversight Board decision on Wednesday to uphold Trump’s ban from the social media platform by saying that the Supreme Court of the United States should intervene and get Trump back on Facebook.

-snip-

Link to tweet

“The US Supreme Court should overturn the Facebook’s ‘Oversight Board’s’ ‘ruling’ which upholds the outlawing of the 45th President of the United States from social media,” Kirk tweeted, urging the highest court in the land to force Facebook to host speech Kirk prefers. “This is a big tech, corporate oligarchy without standing and it’s gone too far. Enough is enough.”

The reaction to this tweet was what you would expect. Some branded it “the single dumbest ‘legal take’ of all time.” Others mocked it by sarcastically offering their own grievances for the Supreme Court to solve.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-single-dumbest-legal-take-of-all-time-charlie-kirk-calls-for-supreme-court-to-get-trump-back-on-facebook/ar-BB1gnOlN

[qazplm135]

1. The Supreme Court

Should force hot dog makers and hot dog bun makers to standardize their packages so that the numbers of buns and dogs actually match!

[getagrip_already]

2. laugh it up, but thomas all but begged for a test case.....

that addresses social media policies wrt to conservative voices.

It only takes the right case and 4 justices to agree to hear it.

Keep laughing that this isn't how anything works. It works like this: a majority opinion of SCOTUS becomes the law of the land. Period.

[hlthe2b]

5. the result which would be the break-up of monopoly social media companies...

something that should happen, regardless.

[getagrip_already]

6. that isn't how scotus works....

They don't issue rulings breaking up companies if that was never a lower court decision.

They could issue a ruling that it is a violation of xyz for a company to do abc, but they wouldn't rule to break up a company unless a company breakup was brought before them. It depends on what the test case alleges.

The most likely outcome is a facebook or twitter, et al, could no longer ban members for political/hate/violent speech of any kind.

[hlthe2b]

7. I'm saying a ruling against social media would force congress to act, OBVIOUSLY

And NO, SCOTUS could not force a private company to allow anyone's access or speech. That's not how it works.

[getagrip_already]

9. so you are saying...

That if a case was brought on constitutional grounds of, oh, lets say, that someone's civil rights were violated by arbitrary bans and other extra-judicial actions by private companies, that they couldn't issue a tortured ruling that the practice is not allowed under law?

Hmm. Interesting.

So they also couldn't tell private companies how they can hire and fire employees? Or how they can't discriminate or pollute?

Interesting.

[hlthe2b]

10. There is no civil right to post on Facebook.

No more than there is for me to sing at Carnegie Hall.

Try again. Or maybe not. SCOTUS CAN rule on Congressionally-passed EMPLOYMENT law. Trump is not a FB employee.

There is no law requiring a private company to scrape and bow to your or my or Trump's whims. We are not their employees.

Geebus.

[getagrip_already]

11. If you were a poc, and they had a policy you couldn't sing because of it....

Then yes, they could (and actually have) issue a ruling banning that practice.

Same thing as if FB issued a policy that said you can't post if you are black. It's a civil rights issue.

Civil rights cut across private industry and social media every single day.

[hlthe2b]

12. This is NOT a discrimination case based on a constitutionally protected group (i.e., race, gender,

sexual orientation).

There is no law banning an individual named Trump, though you seem to be wanting to argue for one.

Hint, GETAGRIPALREADY. Wealthy assholes are not a constitutionally protected group. And good luck proving that outlawing lies while inciting violence is consistent with banning constitutionally protected speech even if it was not the purview of a PRIVATE COMPANY, rather than the government.

[getagrip_already]

13. It is whatever the case the scotus decides to hear says it is...

They decide what constitutes a protected group. Where do you think the basis for gay marriage came from? They decided that lgbtq constitutes a class that gets protections under the constitution.

I have a grip, that's why I don't agree with you.

[hlthe2b]

14. I'm sure plenty on the other side will agree with you, but that is NOT how it works

even with a conservative court. I'm done with you because it has gotten ridiculous.

[captain queeg]

3. "Charlie Kirk" should "STFU"

[hlthe2b]

4. There must be a gene conferring absolute idiocy...

right next to the one that confers an attraction for authoritarianism in RW conservatives.

Gawd... They don't even attempt to cover for their ignorance and stupidity.

[Grasswire2]

8. FB "doesn't have standing"?

Crazy talk.

[2naSalit]

16. It's one of those new, fancy...

Bunch of legal words they've heard in the past year and used against them so that's the one they picked for this fight.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

15. Facebook is not a state actor

[Probatim]

17. I am 100% behind easy opening bacon packages!

[hatrack]

18. Is he the squeaky homunculus who stepped in it with WAP?

Or is that the other squeaky homunculus? I can never tell them apart.