I believe that's a stretch

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Because state rules and parliamentary rules cannot violate the 1st amendment.

Which reminds me as a random aside, roberts rules of order are un-American

---

Not according to the Supreme Court's ruling in Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan.

---

Google summary below. This is very different than restricting an elected representative's right to speak their opinion.

Quote:

---

The Nevada Commission on Ethics censured city councilman Michael Carrigan for voting on a land project for which his campaign manager was a paid consultant

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Because state rules and parliamentary rules cannot violate the 1st amendment.

Which reminds me as a random aside, roberts rules of order are un-American

---

Not according to the Supreme Court's ruling in Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan.

---

Just take a knee!

The idea is that state legislatures can limit speech.

If not, there could be no limitation of debate on the House or Senate floor and therefore the House members could start filibustering items them were against.

That's not what happened here and is pretty irrelevant to this case

waitwhat? said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

7-2


Can you guess the Two?

---

Even Jackson said the reason for her dissent was that it didn't constitute an emergency. She didn't say anything about the merits of the censure.

---

Deciding whether or not a sitting state representative can vote in her chamber isn't an emergency?

I'll bet if it were an illegal appealing deportation she'd consider it an emergency.

In my view, the censure in effect 'disenfranchised voters' who elected her. I guess disenfranchising voters for a whole state district is not an emergency to a couple of supreme court justices. I wonder if they would have done the same for a couple of voters who missed the cut off time for getting in line to vote in 2020.

Chatgpt sums ot up pretty well

Quote:

---

In May 2025, the Court temporarily reinstated her voting and speaking privileges in the state legislature after she was censured for a controversial social media post about a transgender student athlete. The Court's brief order did not provide reasoning, but Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, with Jackson criticizing the decision as a weakening of the Court's standards for emergency intervention .([New York Post][1], [The Guardian][2])

The case has drawn comparisons to *Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan* (2011), where the Supreme Court held that a legislator's vote is not personal speech protected by the First Amendment. In that case, the Court upheld a Nevada law requiring legislators to recuse themselves from votes where they had a conflict of interest, emphasizing that such votes are acts of governance, not individual expression.

In contrast, Libby's situation involves a censure that barred her from voting and speaking due to her social media post, which she argued was protected speech. While *Carrigan* dealt with conflicts of interest and the nature of legislative votes, Libby's case centers on whether a legislature can sanction a member in a way that effectively silences their constituents' representation. The Supreme Court's intervention suggests a recognition of the potential First Amendment implications in her case, distinguishing it from the circumstances in *Carrigan*.([Vox][3])

This decision underscores the ongoing debate over the balance between legislative discipline and free speech rights, especially when sanctions impact a lawmaker's ability to represent their constituents.

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

That's not what happened here and is pretty irrelevant to this case

---

No, it means that legislative bodies have the right to manage their members as they see fit as long as the rules are applied fairly.

Again, she shouldn't have been censured but it's a state issue.

Not if it's a violation of her first amendment rights, which scotus agreed it was

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

That's not what happened here and is pretty irrelevant to this case

---

No, it means that legislative bodies have the right to manage their members as they see fit as long as the rules are applied fairly.

Again, she shouldn't have been censured but it's a state issue.

---

The Supreme Court says otherwise, 7-2. You can't "manage your members" in a way that violates the US Constitution.

Very clear.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

That's not what happened here and is pretty irrelevant to this case

---

No, it means that legislative bodies have the right to manage their members as they see fit as long as the rules are applied fairly.

Again, she shouldn't have been censured but it's a state issue.

---

The Supreme Court says otherwise, 7-2. You can't "manage your members" in a way that violates the US Constitution.

Very clear.

---

Today's ruling is a temporary injunction, as I understand it.

Yes, they think it's likely her rights were violated

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

That's not what happened here and is pretty irrelevant to this case

---

No, it means that legislative bodies have the right to manage their members as they see fit as long as the rules are applied fairly.

Again, she shouldn't have been censured but it's a state issue.

---

The Supreme Court says otherwise, 7-2. You can't "manage your members" in a way that violates the US Constitution.

Very clear.

---

Today's ruling is a temporary injunction, as I understand it.

---

That's fair. We'll see where it goes from here.

I'll just add I can't imagine a scenario where any state legislature can shut down the voice of opposing opinions. Right or left, doesn't matter. Legislatures are where the opinions are supposed to be heard, and then votes taken to ultimately decide on a path forward as determined by the people's elected representatives.

Any action to suppress a legislator's opinion -- no matter how unpopular -- is un-American.

Gaeilge said:

---

Supreme Court orders Maine legislature to revoke censure of Rep. Laurel Libby over trans athlete post

Quote:

---

The U.S. Supreme Court ordered the Maine state legislature to revoke its censure of GOP state representative Laurel Libby on Tuesday.

Libby has been censured since Feb. 15 for a social media post that identified a transgender Maine high school athlete who won a girls' pole vault competition. Democrat majority leader and Maine Speaker of the House Ryan Fecteau told Libby that the censure would be revoked if she apologized for the social media post, but Libby has firmly refused.

---

Quote:

---

Libby had the support of the U.S. Department of Justice and Attorney General Pam Bondi, who filed an amicus brief supporting Libby in her lawsuit, and Bondi has personally spoken out in support of the embattled Republican state representative.

"The Department of Justice is proud to fight for girls in Maine and stand alongside Rep. Libby, who is being attacked simply for defending girls in her home state. As our lawsuit against the state of Maine illustrates, we will always protect girls' sports and girls' spaces from radical gender ideology," Bondi told Fox News Digital.

---

**** the Maine democrats for trying to silence conservatives. I hope Libby primaries that old, worthless ***** Collins!

---

Impossible for a conservative to win in that state. Collins is the best we'll ever do there and the next person will either be a dem or an even more left leaning Republican.