Laurence Tribe

@tribelaw ↗

Deleted No

Hibernated No

Last Checked Dec. 27, 2022

Created

Thu Dec 08 17:36:51 +0000 2022

Likes

305

Retweets

117

Source

Twitter for iPhone

View Raw Data

JSON Data

View on Twitter

Likely Available

Laurence Tribe @tribelaw

Unconst’l? No! The bill dsn’t keep that information “secret” in the sense of sealing it but just prevents its “public posting” by govt (p. 2549) or sale by “businesses” (2556), and even then subject to EXCEPTIONS for display “as part of …speech on a matter of public concern.” — PolitiTweet.org

You can find the clearly unconstitutional provision Jane’s referring to, which would keep the identity of #SCOTUS s… https://t.co/cussuINiLk

Posted Dec. 8, 2022

Preceded 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

Followed By

Laurence Tribe @tribelaw

State secrets? That overstates it. The protected data re covered individuals like children and spouses just couldn’t be traded commercially or posted publicly (eg online) except as part of or related to “a news story, commentary,…, or other speech on a matter of public concern.” — 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