Recent ‘analysis’ frames Missouri v. Biden in entirely partisan terms, revealing an inadequate understanding of First Amendment guarantees. Share
The day after the federal court in Missouri v. Biden granted our request for a preliminary injunction against the government’s censorship regime, law professors Leah Litman and Laurence Tribe published an article in Slate slamming the court’s ruling . Framing the case in entirely partisan terms, Litman and Tribe’s analysis betrayed an inadequate understanding of the First Amendment free speech guarantees and established limits on government power.
The next day, the Biden administration requested a stay against the injunction (which was denied by the district court judge) and appealed the decision to the Fifth Circuit.
As one of the plaintiffs in this case, I can clearly see errors of fact and legal reasoning in their diatribe against the decision. In the opening paragraph, the authors baldly assert, “The impetus behind the […]
Read the Whole Article From the Source: thefederalist.com
- Gold SKYROCKETED during Trump’s first term and is poised to do it again. Find out how Genesis Precious Metals can help you secure your retirement with a proper self-directed IRA backed by physical precious metals.