matthewschafer.bsky.social
Adjunct law prof Fordham Law; Scholar focusing on the intellectual history of press freedom: http://shorturl.at/bhsv7; rare book collector
238 posts
4,923 followers
611 following
Prolific Poster
Conversation Starter
comment in response to
post
Even in the Pentagon Papers case the government asked for closure and the Court denied it.
And, even if an argument requires closure, usually a separate shorter closed session would be the narrow tailoring required. Not wholesale closure.
comment in response to
post
There should be findings of fact on the record showing:
There is a substantial probability of prejudice to a compelling interest.
There is no alternative to closure
Any restriction on access will protect against the harm.
Any restriction on access is narrowly tailored.
comment in response to
post
#rbf
comment in response to
post
Did someone say "defunct courts"?!
(In truth, I love this FJC rundown of "other federal courts" . . . there is so much amazingness here: www.fjc.gov/history/cour...)
comment in response to
post
Maybe if the Court can abandon precedents the executive can abandon statutes
comment in response to
post
OTOH, I'm totally fine with the non-enforcement of the Comstock Act, so maybe I'm just a big hypocrite.
comment in response to
post
Yeah, was thinking about it. With SCOTUS a few days ago saying, "This is totes constitutional," I don't love the look for the Executive to say, "No it's not, going to ignore it." A bit too much 1 branch over the other 2. Feels different than prosecutorial discretion. But maybe I'm too sensitive.
comment in response to
post
Of course, the printing press didn't get to England until the 15th century (two hundred years or so after Magna Charta), so it's not surprising that press freedom isn't explicitly protected. But expression generally is left out to, to Madison's point.
comment in response to
post
Interesting, you've piqued my curiosity. Will look into this...
comment in response to
post
#rbf
comment in response to
post
The problem, of course, is when fees are assessed not in good faith.
comment in response to
post
Do we know what "bots" he's talking about? Is there evidence of this having happened?
comment in response to
post
😂 Wasn't there one about fixing the Court's air conditioning too? Like, thanks John!
comment in response to
post
To be clear, the anecdote must be completely useless...