Supreme Court Rulings: Net Choice and Content Moderation

The Supreme Court ruled that social media platforms' content moderation is protected by the First Amendment, rejecting government regulation.

### All-In Podcast: Hot Swap Summer Continues with Predictions on Biden's Future and SCOTUS Rulings
* 🎙️  The All-In podcast discusses the ongoing "**Hot Swap Summer**" and makes predictions about President Biden's future based on his recent performance and the upcoming interview with **George Stephanopoulos**.
* 🔮  The hosts debate whether Biden will step down due to concerns about his cognitive decline and who his potential replacement could be, with different perspectives on the **likelihood of a "hot swap" scenario**.
* ⚖️  The podcast also covers three recent Supreme Court rulings, including the unanimous decision in NetChoice v. Moody **striking down Florida and Texas laws that imposed restrictions on social media platforms' content moderation practices**.
* 💬  The hosts discuss the implications of the Supreme Court's ruling for **free speech** and the role of government in **regulating online speech**, with varying views on the outcome of the case.

### Supreme Court Ruling on Presidential Immunity and Core Powers
* 🏛️  The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 along party lines that former presidents can't face prosecution for actions related to **core powers of their office** and official acts receive at least the **broad presumption of immunity**.
* 🧑‍⚖️  Chief Justice Roberts emphasized that the decision doesn't necessarily mean **presidents are above the law**.
* 👩‍⚖️  In her dissenting opinion, Justice Sotomayor wrote that under the new ruling, **criminal law can't be applied to presidents even if they misuse their office for personal gain**.
* 🗳️  The case now hinges on whether Trump's conduct was **private** or related to his **official duty**.
* 📜  The Supreme Court gave a three-part test: when the president acts within his **exclusive constitutional authority**, he gets **broad immunity**; when he does an official duty but that's not in that category, he gets **presumptive immunity**; and when he engages in a personal act, there's **no immunity**.
* 🤝  The ruling has significant implications for **past and future presidents**, and it's seen as a necessary decision in light of the **reality of law**.
* 🧠  The devil will be in the details of how the **distinction between official acts and personal acts** is adjudicated in specific cases.

Hot Swap growing, donors revolt, President Kamala? SCOTUS breakdown: Immunity, Chevron, Censorship

Chamath Palihapitiya, Jason Calacanis, David Sacks & David Friedberg cover all things economic, tech, political, social & poker.

Follow the besties: 
https://twitter.com/chamath
https://twitter.com/Jason
https://twitter.com/DavidSacks
https://twitter.com/friedberg

Follow the pod: 
https://twitter.com/theallinpod
https://www.instagram.com/theallinpod
https://www.tiktok.com/@all_in_tok
https://www.linkedin.com/company/allinpod

Subscribe to our clips channel for the best of the besties:
https://www.youtube.com/@allinpod?sub_confirmation=1


All-In Podcast

The Allin podcast is hosting a summit with 400 tickets released this week and a focus on American politics, media, technology, and enterprise software.

The summit will feature bird of a feather dinners and big parties, with applications available on the Allin podcast website.

The podcast is also discussing the shift to prediction markets in the current election cycle and the rising favorability of Kamala Harris in the Democratic party.

Speculation on Biden's Potential Dropout and Harris's Nomination Chances

VP Harris's odds of becoming the Democratic nominee have surged from 18% to 50%, while President Biden's chances have dropped to 28%.

There is speculation about Biden potentially dropping out, despite the White House denying the rumors.

Biden's upcoming interview with Stephanopoulos is seen as crucial for his presidency's fate.

The Democratic Party may be strategizing a potential replacement for Biden through a structured plan, possibly involving a series of debates and a speedy primary election.

The Inevitability of Kamala Harris as the Democratic Presidential Candidate

Kamala Harris is the likely Democratic candidate due to her strong support base and the financial implications for the party.

The Democratic party is unlikely to choose an outsider or a billionaire as their candidate, as they are deeply entrenched in insider politics.

The party's decision is driven by the need to win and the perceived electability of Harris over other potential candidates.

The Democratic Party's Leadership Dilemma

The Democratic party is facing a potential leadership change, with prediction markets favoring either Harris or Biden.

The possibility of Biden resigning and Harris becoming president is a significant concern for some, given the current international crisis with Russia.

There are also discussions about the party's struggle with identity politics and the challenges of potentially running Kamala Harris for the next election.

The Democratic Party's Challenges and the Media's Role

The Democratic Party is facing a time crunch to address identity politics issues and concerns about Biden's readiness for office.

Internal conflicts and leaks are adding to the party's challenges.

The media is accused of covering up Biden's cognitive decline, leading to a lack of transparency and accountability in power.

The Call for a Change in Democratic Leadership

There are concerns about President Biden's ability to lead, with suggestions that he should not run for a second term.

The proposal is for the Democrats to allow Biden to run a dignified campaign and gracefully accept the potential loss, similar to the way the Republicans handled Bob Dole's campaign.

There is a call for the Democrats to embrace an outsider candidate with business success and credibility to have a better chance of winning against Trump.

The focus is on the need for a significant change in Democratic leadership to improve their chances of success.

The 2021 Supreme Court Decision on Social Media Censorship

The Supreme Court made a unanimous decision that the editorial judgment and curation of content by social media platforms is a form of expressive activity protected by the First Amendment.

The Court's ruling stated that content moderation is entitled to the same First Amendment protections as any other kind of speech, emphasizing the right of platforms to make their own decisions about the content they host.

The decision was seen as a win for social media companies' freedom of speech and editorial control, while also signaling that the government should have a limited role in regulating online content.

The Debate Over Government Regulation of Social Media Platforms

Liberals are being accused of "cancelling" people on social media, leading to a call for government regulation, which some oppose, suggesting that the market should determine the winners.

Texas and Florida are enacting laws that limit innovation in an effort to protect existing interests, raising questions about their level of protectionism.

The Supreme Court's decisions are showing a non-ideological approach, with nuanced rulings that address key issues, making the Court unpredictable in its judgments.

The Impact of the Supreme Court's Decision on the Chevron Doctrine

The Supreme Court's 6-3 decision overturned the landmark 1984 Chevron case, shifting power from administrative agency staff to federal judges and courts.

The ruling is expected to provide a check and balance system, allowing companies to bring regulatory concerns to an independent judiciary.

The decision is likely to limit the authority of agencies to create excessive rules and regulations, leading to a healthier and more balanced system, although it may cause some initial disruption.

The Chevron Doctrine, which allows agencies to make rules as long as they are reasonable, has led to a surge in rule-making by unelected bureaucrats.

This has resulted in the overwhelming power of the administrative state, and reversing the Chevron Doctrine could help restore democracy.

The current Supreme Court is characterized by a balanced 3-3-3 structure, with a middle block that creates equilibrium, and despite calls for court-packing, it is seen as one of the last functional institutions in American public life.

A chart analyzing the Supreme Court justices' decisions has been debated, but the key lies in the unpredictability of the justices, supporting the view of the court as a balanced 333 Court.

The Supreme Court's Decision on Online Porn Age Verification

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case on the limits of online porn, specifically focusing on a Texas law that requires age verification and access restrictions for minors.

The law, if upheld, would impact users' ability to access porn by requiring personal information for age verification, a measure opposed by the ACLU and the Free Speech Coalition.

The case has raised concerns about the potential impact on constitutionally protected free expression and has sparked a debate about the regulation of online porn.

Supreme Court Ruling on Presidential Immunity

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that former presidents are immune from prosecution for actions related to their official powers.

Justice Sotomayor's dissenting opinion expressed concerns that the new ruling could allow presidents to misuse their office without facing criminal prosecution.

The ruling now leaves the lower courts to determine whether Trump's conduct related to overturning the election was within his official duty as president.

The Supreme Court's Ruling on Presidential Immunity

The Supreme Court made a necessary decision to rule on criminal immunity for a former president, citing the unprecedented lawfare against Trump.

The ruling established a three-part test, providing broad immunity for actions within the president's constitutional authority, presumptive immunity for official duties, and no immunity for personal acts.

The decision aims to set a useful doctrine for past and future presidents, aiming to ensure the president can effectively carry out the job.

Supreme Court Judgments and the Future of Jack Smith

The Supreme Court made a significant ruling on the misuse of Sarbanes-Oxley in the January 6 obstruction case.

The combined impact of these judgments suggests that Jack Smith should resign due to the weakening of his cases.

The discussion also involves the mistreatment of individuals in political prosecutions related to the January 6 events.