I'm not sure why YouTube should cater to conspiracy theorists just because they'll get upset that their conspiracies are not blasted from YouTube's megaphone. YT is within its rights, and there are thousands of other video sharing services (including Mega, which is totally unregulated) for them to share their content on. They can and do self-host as well.
0 - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/...
1 - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-electio...
2 - https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/georgia-s-republican-s...
The Supreme Court denied a request for emergency injunctive relief. They did not deny certiorari.
And yes, I did look through SCOTUS's docket to find any other docketed case referring to Kelly v PA.
So, unless I'm missing something, the former comment appeared correct.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/do...
There's no indication in the docket that anything about the case is still live.
If you read the original brief, this is what it requests:
> Petitioners also ask the Court to consider this Application as a petition for certiorari, grant certiorari on the questions presented, treat the Application papers as merits briefing, and issue a merits decision as soon as practicable.
In denying the application, it is by proxy denying the request for certiorari, although I believe it would be theoretically possible to actually reapply for certiorari. (Looking through SCOTUS's rules, it does seem that Rule 22.4 suggests that this is the case)
Look for "Declaration of Charles J. Cicchetti"
The probability of former Vice President Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant States—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—independently given President Trump’s early lead in those States as of 3 a.m.on November 4, 2020,is less than one in a quadrillion, or 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000.For former Vice President Biden to win these four States collectively, the odds of that event happening decrease to less than one in a quadrillion to the fourth power (i.e., 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,0004).
This - of course - is only true assuming votes are evenly distributed though out each state, and urban centers vote the same as country areas. He doesn't even mention that in his affidavit.
And he tries to use Z-scores to claim that it's impossible this mean people voted differently compared to 2016! That's ridiculous and - very notably - he fails to to do the same for eg Trump vs Romney or Obama vs Clinton.
No wonder trust in science is decreasing with people asking us to take this crap seriously.
There are 6 reasons for SCOTUS to dismiss it before it even considers the merits. Anyone who thinks the case has a chance does not understand SCOTUS.
But just because it isn't doesn't excuse the Republicans that are attacking our democracy just to soothe an old narcissists ego
Edit: if they do the states in question will probably call special legislative sessions to repair the defect.
[0]: https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-3/29-suits-be...
Here's the relevant text: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."
This means that the legislatures of the state have total and exclusive power over the manner in which their electors are chosen. Plainly read, no other body, including that state's judiciary or executive, has the power to direct how electors are chosen. This power is so broad the state could select electors by lottery, or even a poll on hackernews and it wouldn't be subject to any oversight other than a constitutional amendment.
So, you can see that this isn't about a state following its own laws, it's about a state following the constitution. Since the constitution is a pact between the fifty sovereign states, like any other binding pact when another party doesn't follow the rules of the pact they can be sued in the appropriate venue which is the Supreme Court of the United States, or otherwise acted against. Let us hope it doesn't come to the otherwise option anytime soon, because the last time was a real mess.
I think the best, if not necessarily the most likely outcome, is that the court orders the lawbreaking states to fix things, which is as simple as calling a special legislative section and passing a resolution selecting a slate of electors. Presumably states with Democratic legislatures will pick Biden and those with Republican legislatures will pick Trump, but no matter what it will be up to the democratically elected legislatures of the state in question, which in a sane world would be acceptable to both sides.
And your proposed remedy involving throwing away everyone's votes is completely outrageous (as noted by the judge when proposed by the Trump team in MI or PA)
SCOTUS settles interstate disputes all the time. But one of the things they look at before they hear a dispute is if the dispute can be settled in a lower court.
In this case, Texas is complaining about the way otehr states conduct their affairs. The normal course to do this would be via the states courts (that is literally what they exist for).
It's very unclear why SCOTUS would hear this instead of directing Texas to file in the state courts.
(There's also the question of standing, but that's another hurdle Texas would have to overcome)
They rejected it.
Once again it was a fantasy disconnected to facts.
UTexas Law Professor says about it: "It looks like we have a new leader in the “craziest lawsuit filed to purportedly challenge the election” category" and "o chalk this up as mostly a stunt — a dangerous, offensive, and wasteful one, but a stunt nonetheless."[1]
[1] https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1336312379408322560
Well, I'm convinced.
[0]: https://law.utexas.edu/faculty/stephen-i-vladeck [1]: https://www.kvue.com/article/news/education/university-of-te...
Are you arguing that candidates and parties should not be allowed to challenge various aspects of elections in a court of law? You think that had Trump been barred from filing lawsuits, that that would improve trust in the election system?
Most of the lawsuits Trumps lawyers and other supporters have produced are batshit and people are trying to get the lawyers sanctioned for frivolous lawsuits. These suits are failing in court, the only thing they're good for is as a justification for conspiracy theories
YouTube isn’t a public utility and they don’t have to publish things they don’t like.
Disclaimer: I don’t really like YouTube and I think it would indeed be better if the internet was less centralised for this very reason.
They are protected under safe harbor provisions. The question arises, once they start taking direct editorial control over content, should they be?
I could waste everyone's time and explain why that's flat wrong. Instead, I'll refer you here[0] which will explain, in detail, why you're wrong about Section 230.
[0] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRf9UxsM-NE
It should give you an idea about what kind of ideological bias you can expect from this company.
If they don’t want to show the content, tough luck.
Don’t like the content? Don’t watch it.
Don’t agree with their ethics ? Don’t use their product.
It’s simple.
Sigh. YouTube is run by a public company, has been for many years.
You mean that you wish to require others to say or host the things that you want, and if they don't they should be forced to do so?
That's freedom for you but not for others, not the other way around.
This is likely going to make a lot of conservatives in the US unhappy, since a number of elected officials in Congress (!) are openly questioning the election results. Also seems a lot more severe than Twitter’s approach, where Twitter is labeling “disputed claims” rather than taking them down.
I don’t believe that the 2020 US presidential election was rigged, but I think it’s heavy-handed to take these videos down outright. After the 2016 election, many people went wild with Russian conspiracy theories that proved to mostly be bogus, and that content never got this level of platform scrutiny or censorship.