Facebook’s Oversight Board, often referred to as the platform’s “supreme court,” has announced a new process that would allow users to escalate content removal appeals directly to the Oversight Board if they feel that their posts have been removed unfairly.
In a recent announcement, Facebook’s Oversight Board announced that users that have exhausted the content removal appeals processes of Facebook and Instagram can escalate their complaints directly to the Oversight Board. Facebook itself can now also refer cases to the Oversight Board for a decision on whether or not to allow it on the platform.
18 Out of 20 Members on Facebook’s Fact-Checking Board Have Ties to Soros
Congressman Matt Gaetz Files Criminal Referral Against Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg
UK Thought Police Pay Man Home Visit Over “Offensive” Facebook Comments (Video)
Facebook Censorship Council Includes Pro-Muslim Brotherhood Activist
The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled, for the second time in less than 30 days, that Governor Gretchen Whitmer illegally overstepped her authority, substituting executive orders for legislation during the COVID crisis.
The state’s Supreme Court struck down all executive orders Whitmer had issued during the COVID-19 pandemic. The 4-to-3 ruling declared the executive orders Whitmer issued under the Emergency Powers of Governor Act have “no continuing legal effect.”
In a separate ruling, the Michigan justices ruled 6-to-1 to reject Whitmer’s request to delay the annulment of her orders until October 30, 2020.
Michigan House Speaker Lee Chatfield (R), celebrated the ruling, writing on Twitter, “Another big win at the Supreme Court today!”
Whitmer Kidnap Plot Distracting From Illegal Lockdown Ruling (VIdeo)
Suspect in Whitmer Kidnap Plot Was Pardoned by Delaware Governor in 219
MI Supreme Court: Whitmer Lockdown Measures Unconstitutional
Whitmer Uses Emergency Alert System To Dictate Mask Wearing
The Michigan Supreme Court on Monday denied Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s request to extend emergency powers that she invoked to curb the spread of the coronavirus.
The conservative-majority court rejected the Democratic governor’s request to delay the effect of its decision striking down a law she had used to keep intact sweeping orders amid the pandemic.
The justices voted 6-1 against halting the precedential effect of its Oct. 2 opinion until Oct. 30. They reaffirmed their initial 4-3 ruling that declared unconstitutional her use of the 1945 emergency powers law.
Whitmer Panics After Court Strikes Down Executive Orders
On Monday’s broadcast of the Fox News Channel’s “Hannity,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) stated that Senate Republicans have “the votes to confirm Justice Ginsburg’s replacement before the election.”
And said that the Senate Judiciary Committee will report the nomination so there can be a vote on the floor of the Senate on the nominee prior to the election and that Republicans will confirm Ginsburg’s replacement prior to the election.
Graham also vowed that the nominee to replace Ginsburg on the Supreme Court will be supported by all the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Joe Biden says that voters don’t have the right to know who his Supreme Court nomination will be until after he wins the presidency.
The exchange happened during a campaign stop earlier today when Biden accused Donald Trump of trying to change the subject by focusing on who the former Vice President would pick to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
“Should voters know who you’re going to appoint?” Biden was asked.
“No they don’t but they will if I’m elected, they’ll know in plenty of time,” he responded.
Vice President Mike Pence blasted Chief Justice John Roberts as “a disappointment” over his rulings made on the nation’s highest court.
“We have great respect for the institution of the Supreme Court of the United States,” Pence said in an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network on Thursday. “But Chief Justice John Roberts has been a disappointment to conservatives.”
Pence pointed to Roberts’ decisive votes on multiple Supreme Court cases in recent months that were seen as losses to the Trump administration, including his move to strike down a contentious Louisiana law related to abortion.
“A narrow Supreme Court decision, striking down a Louisiana pro-life law that only said that doctors working in abortion clinics would have to have admitting privileges at local hospitals,” Pence said. “That’s a very modest restriction on abortion providers, but a narrow majority in the Supreme Court still said it was unacceptable.”
While all eyes were on the Supreme Court’s Thursday decision granting New York prosecutors access to President Trump’s taxes, a ruling earlier in the day recognized roughly half of Oklahoma as an Indian reservation – in a move which could have wide-ranging legal implications for the 1.8 million people who now live in “Indian Country,” according to the New York Times.
The decision, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, holds the United States to an 1866 treaty that the Muscogee (Creek) Nation signed with the United States after the Civil War over land which was home to the “Five Civilized Tribes”; the Creek, Cherokee Nation, the Seminole, the Chickasaw Nation, and the Choctaw Nation, according to The New Republic.
“Today we are asked whether the land these treaties promised remains an Indian reservation for purposes of federal criminal law,” wrote Gorsuch, a Trump appointee. “Because Congress has not said otherwise, we hold the government to its word.”
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Trump administration’s attempt to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program is “arbitrary and capricious” and cannot proceed.
Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by the four liberal judges, ruled that Trump’s decision to rescind DACA violated the Administrative Procedure Act. DACA, which was instituted in 2012 by President Obama, allowed 700,000 illegal aliens who were brought to the United States as children to apply for a two-year deportation deferral. The deferral, which comes with work eligibility, may be renewed, but does not provide a path to citizenship.
“Here the agency failed to consider the conspicuous issues of whether to retain forbearance and what if anything to do about the hardship to DACA recipients,” the court wrote, declining to rule on the legality of DACA itself. “That dual failure raises doubts about whether the agency appreciated the scope of its discretion or exercised that discretion in a reasonable manner. The appropriate recourse is therefore to remand to DHS so that it may consider the problem anew.”
The Supreme Court has ordered the City of San Jose, Calif., to explain why police, seven years ago, confiscated the legal firearms from the wife of a man who was hospitalized for a mental health issue.
The San Jose police haven’t returned the wife’s firearms from the incident which predated the national debate over ‘red flag’ laws by several years.
“Her firearms were seized seven years ago after her husband was taken to a hospital on a mental health issue,” the Second Amendment Foundation said. “At the time, a San Jose police officer advised Rodriguez he had authority to seize all firearms in the residence, including those belonging solely to her, which were all locked in a California-approved safe.”
The Supreme Court of the Netherlands ruled on Tuesday, April 21, that it is lawful for doctors to euthanize patients with severe dementia, provided that the patient had expressed a desire to be euthanized while still legally capable of doing so.
Lower courts had previously ruled that a doctor had not acted improperly when he euthanized a 74-year-old woman with advanced dementia, even though the woman had to be repeatedly sedated and physically restrained during the procedure. The case was sent to the Supreme Court for further clarification of the country’s euthanasia law, which permits doctors to kill patients considered to be in “unbearable suffering.”
Per Dutch law, euthanasia is only legal for those with dementia if they had written or discussed an advanced directive with their doctor.
“For some people, the prospect of ever suffering from dementia may be sufficient reason to make an advance directive (living will). This can either be drawn up independently or discussed first with the family doctor. A physician can perform euthanasia on a patient with dementia only if such a directive exists, if statutory care is taken and if, in his opinion, the patient is experiencing unbearable suffering with no prospect of improvement,” says the Dutch government’s website.
Catholic News Agency