3 ms·
I don’t agree with that analysis. The modern Supreme Court loves to wade into high-profile First Amendment issues, all the more when it’s actually a relatively
by rfw300 2y ago
I don’t agree with that analysis. The modern Supreme Court loves to wade into high-profile First Amendment issues, all the more when it’s actually a relatively novel application. They’ll take this case either to be argued at the end of this term or next term, and it will be subject to their analysis and whatever Trump decides to do with his discretion.
- brookst 2y agoAgreed. This would be the perfect vehicle for a very broad ruling that the government can ban media in the name of national security, the precedent of which could be used in an ad hoc manner.
- EasyMark 2y agoOooof I don’t think it will, but that bogey man is always in the back of the mind after SCOTUS essentially made the office of the President a 4 year kingship where you are immune to all but the most heinous crimes as president as long as you can cross the I’s and dot the T’s of “official business”
- fny 2y agoThis is a bipartisan issue. One of the three judges is an Obama appointee. If this case goes to the SC (big if), expect it to swing the exact same way. Trump also has no ability to upend this: he lacks the authority by law.
- EasyMark 2y agoHe can make sure that they aren’t prosecuted for the next 4 years since he is essentially the “sheriff and DA” that brings this stuff to court. He has made it clear that the DOJ, FBI, DEA, etc will be his personal police force and not independent. This is a yuge part of his Project 2025 plan