Laurence Tribe

@tribelaw ↗

Deleted No

Hibernated No

Last Checked Dec. 27, 2022

Created

Thu Dec 08 15:53:03 +0000 2022

Likes

2,060

Retweets

618

Source

Twitter for iPhone

View Raw Data

JSON Data

View on Twitter

Likely Available

Laurence Tribe @tribelaw

This misreads the provision, @JaneMayerNYer. I wish you’d read it with your usual care. I helped write it, so I know EXACTLY what it would do and it would NOT have the unfortunate effects you forecast. — PolitiTweet.org

Lawmakers have just added a provision to the National Defense Authorization Act protecting Supreme Court spouses fr… https://t.co/7GH33bcziH

Posted Dec. 8, 2022

Preceded By

Laurence Tribe @tribelaw

This isn’t correct, @JaneMayerNYer. You’ve somehow overlooked “EXCEPTIONS” at p. 2557 lines 5-21, saying “Clause (i) shall not apply to — “information . . . relevant to and displayed as part of a news, story, commentary,…, or other speech on a matter of public concern.” — PolitiTweet.org

Here’s the language in the proposed bill describing information that could be withheld about Supreme Court justices… https://t.co/nWr7grFWP1

Posted Dec. 8, 2022

Followed By

Laurence Tribe @tribelaw

You overlooked the EXCEPTIONS at pg. 2557 lines 5-21 to prevent precisely such “unintended consequences.” Part (III) exempts “covered information lawfully received from … an employee … of the Federal Government” and Part (I) exempts information “on a matter of public concern” — PolitiTweet.org

This provision had noble intentions but in the breadth of its language, would have the unintended consequence of fu… https://t.co/s1YWP1yZLw

Posted Dec. 8, 2022