Supreme Court Decides if the Government Coerced Twitter | Sarah Isgur and David French

Sarah and David return for a truly prolific episode covering another SCOTUS decision day and revisit where they stand on originalism and its faults.
The Agenda:
-Doctrine coded vs. culture-war coded
-Did the government coerce social media companies in 2020?
-David, you ignorant slut
-Interpreting “corruptly”
-The accidental release of Idaho abortion case
-Is SCOTUS strategic in its opinion release schedule?
-The problems with originalism
-Trump immunity case delay

[@jem7636]

David talked about gifts to teachers, but the statute specifically states that the value of the gift has to exceed 5,000 dollars. Sarah didn't mention that the mayor walked into the dealership and said I need money (he asked for $15,000 but was bargained down to $13,000). There is no evidence the mayor preformed any work for the dealership (besides fixing the bid).
Copied from the statute: (B)corruptly solicits or demands for the benefit of any person, or accepts or agrees to accept, anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions of such organization, government, or agency involving any thing of value of $5,000 or more; or
The case also comes down in the context of the court striking down every case touching corruption. Is it a surprise that a court that has a justice that took millions in gifts from billionaire benefactors is soft on corruption?

[@richarddean3154]

Not sure that SCOTUS "decided" the matter in this instance. The plaintiffs didn't establish standing and thereby couldn't stand before the court. That certainly doesn't mean that the government acted faithfully.