|
Kate Klonick@klonick.bsky.social |
Barrett: Plaintiffs claims are "no more than conjecture" and "have not pointed to *any* past restrictions likely traceable to government defendants" -- and Fifth Circuit wrongly relied on District Court's "clearly erroneous" findings of fact.
4 replies 18 reposts 62 likes
|
Hostrauser
@hostrauser.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Relief. I still disagree with Barrett far more often than I agree with her, but it's refreshing to see (fairly often, actually) that she has taken her role as a Supreme Court Justice seriously, instead of just devolving into a partisan hack (which was my initial fear).
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Kordo
@kordo.bsky.social
[ View ] |
I don't expect her to go Full Hippie anytime soon, but I'm enjoying watching Barrett wake up to exactly what sort of lowbrow hacks she's hanging out with.
0 replies 0 reposts 3 likes
|
|
Kate Klonick
@klonick.bsky.social
[ View ] |
FWIW, I (& many others) said this case was an absolute mess since it came out July 4, 2023 (see my piece in NYT)
www.nytimes.com/2023/07/13/o...
TBC, jawboning--govt coercion of private intermediaries to take down speech--is a real problem. But this case never had the facts...
1 replies 2 reposts 14 likes
|
Eileen Clancy
@clancyny.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Excellent! I hope you/your colleagues will have a chance to draw out the meaning of and significance of this decision for us layfolk. I'd like to understand more about these issues since it seems likely we will continue to see more instances.
0 replies 0 reposts 1 likes