Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

reACTIONary

(7,271 posts)

14. I don't understand this. I think you are maintaining that....

Reply to angrychair (Reply #13)

Thu Apr 30, 2026, 01:32 PM

Apr 30

.... because you could be easily intimidated by government investigation and disclosure, we should make it easer on the government to intimidate through investigation and disclosure.

I think we should make it hard, if not impossible for the government to inhibit free speech through disclosure. That is what this ruling will accomplish.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

22 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court Sides With Anti-Abortion Clinic in Fight Over Donor Records [View all] Polybius Apr 29 OP

SCOTUS angrychair Apr 29 #1

Nine to Zero... reACTIONary Apr 29 #3

It is fascist angrychair Apr 30 #4

"If the system is supporting and protecting people... reACTIONary Apr 30 #6

This case angrychair Apr 30 #7

The most recent example is... reACTIONary Apr 30 #9

As I said in post 19... pat_k Apr 30 #20

Regarding unanimous decisions... Polybius Apr 30 #17

I did angrychair Apr 30 #18

9-0 eggplant Apr 29 #2

It likely does not angrychair Apr 30 #8

Since the 1950s.... reACTIONary Apr 30 #10

Courts are for people that can afford it angrychair Apr 30 #12

As a person who pursued a pro se case for more than five years against the servicer and noteholder of two mortgages pat_k Apr 30 #22

That is clearly Gorsuch's Christian nationalist agenda -- i.e., declare it "constitutional" to impose PERSONAL religious pat_k Apr 30 #21

**********THIS IS A 9-0 RULING*************** Prairie Gates Apr 30 #5

The court asks us to just ask ourselves... reACTIONary Apr 30 #11

As I just posted a second ago angrychair Apr 30 #13

I don't understand this. I think you are maintaining that.... reACTIONary Apr 30 #14

I think you are missing my point angrychair Apr 30 #15

So you want the Supreme court to undo a precedent.... reACTIONary Apr 30 #16

Not a bad decision. They can challenge. Doesn't mean they'll win. pat_k Apr 30 #19