Trump Doesn’t Want To Get Back On Twitter So Badly, He’s Appealing His Case To Get Back On Twitter
from the say-what-now? dept
In April, Donald Trump insisted he had no interest whatsoever in getting back on Twitter (in response to questions about whether or not Elon Musk would allow him back, should he ever close his Twitter purchase). In May, Donald Trump lost his lawsuit trying to force Twitter to reinstate him. In June, Donald Trump (who again, insists he wouldn’t even go back to Twitter if he were allowed to) decided to appeal the loss in his lawsuit in order to try to force Twitter to reinstate him.
The fact that Donald Trump might state things contrary to the truth isn’t much of a surprise, of course. But at some point, you gotta wonder how much he wants to actually rack up legal bills for this nonsense victimization campaign.
To be honest, I was a bit surprised Trump jumped straight to appeal here. The district court judge had left it open for him to amend his complaint, and I figured Trump would take one more crack at that before jumping to appeal. However, maybe he’s feeling high because his hand-picked Supreme Court Justices have started to show less and less restraint in using their lifetime appointments to settle political grievances — so perhaps he feels the faster he can get in front of today’s SCOTUS, the better.
This case is a total loser, though, and it would take some seriously warped twisting of so much existing law, that even this court would likely find it difficult to force Twitter to reinstate Trump.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, appeal, content moderation, donald trump
Companies: twitter
Comments on “Trump Doesn’t Want To Get Back On Twitter So Badly, He’s Appealing His Case To Get Back On Twitter”
See it that way:
It will still be good enough for a dissent of Thomas, which is enough for Trump to complain that he needs to get reelected for fixing the radical left Supreme Court that diverges on important matters.
And the dissent will be the leadup for the whole court to pick other Internet-related appeals and “fix” them.
Re:
There are ways to fix that.
Problem is, no one wants to resort to them, even when we have politicians who were more than happy to promote violence and insurrection. Trump and Clarence’s fucking wife included.
Re: Re:
I hope you’ve got a lot of money. Regardless of the fact that your allegations against Trump and Ginni Thomas are true, you could still be sued for libel. You know that reality’s never mattered to anyone from that particular cadre.
Re: Re: Re:
Who said anything about money?
I’m the psycho here. And the fucking NeoNazis in power keep getting away with 4 years of ruining America, and the damage looks to be worse and continuing.
Again, no one wants to resort to the “nuclear options”.
Re: Re: Re:2
Whoa! Way to go off topic.
Re: Re: Re:3
YEAH!!!1
What does this have to do with technology?™
Re: Re: Re:4
I meant that AC had gone way off-topic from the comment they replied to. I have no problem if Techdirt or anyone else wants to talk about nontech issues.
'I don't even like grapes!' says man drooling over them
Twitter: You can’t have any of our grapes any more.
Trump: I didn’t want them anyway, they were sour and gross so even if you offered I still wouldn’t take them!
Judge: They don’t have to give you any of their grapes.
Trump: This is unacceptable, if they won’t give me their grapes(which again I totally don’t want) voluntarily they must be forced to give them to me, and if this court won’t do it I’ll just try another one!
Re:
Trump: I hardly know what grapes are. I’ve heard very negative things about them. They’re nasty.
The fact that once Truth Social tanks he won’t have any platform at all might be why he wants to get back…
Re:
I’m pretty sure it was dead on arrival like a Florida Fetus or a Texas [can’t do it 😉 ]
Re: Re:
What you did do was bad enough, troll.
Reinstate
I say reinstate him and then block access to anyone to view his tweets. “Hey you asked to have access to the platform and you do, no where do we assure you get access to an audience though!”
Musk?
What is the current status of Musk playing with Twitter?
Re:
No news since Twitter provided Musk with the firehose API.
WSJ has a paywalled article whose headlines and blurbs discuss that despite Musk’s bravado, analysis of that data likely isn’t easy.
I suspect we won’t hear about this for a while.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Revisionism
Trump actually picked from a list of judges from the Federalist Society. Approximately 80% of his federal nominees were current or former members, as were all of his supreme court nominees, and also the Federalist Society vetted his other choices. Conservatives were concerned that Trump would blow it on judicial appointments, as Bush clearly did. But Trump hit a grand slam, as far as conservatives are concerned, by outsourcing his picks to the group instead of his own acquaintances. The Federalist Society did all of the hand picking.
Re:
Well duh, Trump outsourced anything that actually worked.
Re:
You are the one who assumes hand picked refers to Trump.
hand-picked is used here as an adjective. They were select carefully with a particular purpose in mind. The term does not interact with the subject (“his”/Trump) like it would as a verb.
Re:
Actually, I would guess that the judges were all selected by Mitch McConnell. I think that was the essence of the Faustian deal between Trump and him.
For either Trump or McConnell, there is neither right nor wrong, only successful or not.
But Trump is a stupid if sly brute. McConnell is dispassionate. Should Trump drop off the radar, McConnell will be fine pulling the strings of the next sociopathic populist he can get a hold of.
After January 6th he thought his puppet was burnt and put up a bit of theatrics appearing to ditch it. When he figured that it actually was still surprisingly popular, he put it out to work again.
McConnell will lunge at nobody’s throat. He has attack dogs for that kind of thing.
His minions will pay
you gotta wonder how much he wants to actually rack up legal bills for this nonsense victimization campaign
The likelihood that there’s an email/text campaign going on to raise money for this is ~100%. He’ll just tell the rubes to donate. Being the fools that they are, he’ll have money left to spare.
It’s no big deal when the simps are funding the ’cause.’
“even this court would likely find it difficult to force Twitter to reinstate Trump.”
Really, really shitty hot take given the death of Roe v. Wade by the same court. The conservative justices would find it super easy to reinstate Trump. They are specifically there to do the bidding of the conservatives. That’s why the conservatives invested so much time and effort in stacking the court.
Look at me!
He just trying anything to stay in the news. He’s becoming irrelevant and can’t stand it.
Re:
No no, Trump is still relevant and in the news. The problem for him is why.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Here’s the fixed version of your radical polemic:
All Supreme Court justices are hand-picked, by the way.
Re:
And since when is state-forced pregnancy not an unreasonable seizure of the body of a person with a uterus? Fuck off, liar.
Re:
Spoken like someone who has neither read it, nor taken anything beyond watered-down High School US History.
Re:
That’s not what’s happening.
Hey, Trump. You know the First Amendment right that corporations have to decide they don’t want to hear your garbage about how you “stopped Covid in its tracks”? Well, guess what? Your own party gave them that right! 😂
For as long as he can get away without actually paying his lawyers.
On-topic spam is still spam. Fuck off.
Paying lawyers
How long can he get away with not paying lawyers for their services? Probably forever, as long as he finds lawyers who are willing to work for free so they can boast to their friends that they have Trump as a client.
So here’s a question: if the lawyers know Trump doesn’t have a case, but they take it anyway, but they don’t receive any payment for their services, is it still an ethics issue?
Also for as long as he can get ~~suckers~~ his followers to keep sending him money for his legal fund.
Yes. The act of filing a case known to be without merit is an ethics violation for a bar seated lawyer. Giuliani and Powel both face sanctions, and Giuliani has either been suspended from the bar or had his license to practice law outright revoked, I can’t remember the exact status there, for filing lawsuits they knew or should have known were without merit.
So here’s a question: if the lawyers know Trump doesn’t have a case, but they take it anyway, but they don’t receive any payment for their services, is it still an ethics issue?
IANAL, but I reckon a pro bono case is still subject to the same rules as any other, even if the lawyers didn’t intend it to be pro bono.
Unfortunately, I’m pretty sure that kind of restraint and chastisement is handled by lawyers and judges who were/are lawyers, so the bar is set in the stratosphere.