consider further what his testimony might be informed by the discovery he will be seeing from the government. so it is risky because his statements can be used against him. that makes sense. so the decision from the judge supposedly coming very soon, but his arraignment is also coming soon as it is from all the other co-defendants on september 6 i believe. does a decision need to come before the arraignment? the decision doesn t need to come before the arraignment. i believe the judge said he was mindful of the september 6 date. i believe he said that meadows needed to show up if the judge had not issued an opinion before then. but the judge clearly wants to move this along. the other defendants will be watching to see not only the judge s ultimate decision but the reasoning behind it in evaluating whether they too want to seek removal to federal court. once the arraignment happens on september 6, that actually starts the clock for purposes of the deadline for other defendants who
in service of ideas that were wrong. they were protecting its own misinformation, criticism of its misinformation by censorship activities. i guess what i m say ing if the government had limited itself to providing valid information without being coercive, and i think in this opinion when you look at the examples, what i just showed, this is coming from the highest level. i mean, the highest level of government, i think it turned coercive. but i don t think the government surrenders its own speech write. the press secretaries got the opportunity and right to speak on behalf of the administration on a day-to-day basis. what i m trying to say is there s a balance somewhere in there that s necessary. fair? yeah, i agree. don t think it s this decision doesn t say the government can t speak. i don t think anyone was looking
valid information without being coercive, and i think in this opinion when you look at the examples, what i just showed, this is coming from the highest level, and i mean the highest level of government. i think it turned coercive. but i don t think the government surrenders its own speech write. the white house press secretary has the opportunity and right to speak on behalf of the administration on a day-to-day basis. what i m trying to say is there s a balance somewhere in there that s necessary. fair? yeah, i agree. don t think it s this decision doesn t say the government can t speak. i don t think anyone was looking at it would think that. what it says is the government can t coerce social media companies to censor me, but just because they disagree with me. just because i m criticizing their ideas. and they got it deeply wrong. they were wrong about mask mandates, and yet they forced youtube to take down a video of
my fear, too. i mean, the one thing i can say is that on one hand, the supreme court might be better or slightly better than the fifth circuit. it is the most idealogical of our federal circuit courts of appeals right now. i don t have any confidence that the fifth circuit will either stand up for women or even stand up for the right of the fda to decide which drugs are safe and effective. i mean, this decision doesn t just undermine women and their right to abortion. it undermines the entire regulatory state, which is a larger project of the larger conservative movement. they don t want federal agencies to have power to make decisions. because they don t like what happens in things they care about, like oil and gas and the environmental movement they want agencies to have less power. with respect to the supreme court, joy, i think the one thing that we can say is that judge kacsmaryk has so squarely across the board decided for the plaintiffs on everything from
when he had been governor. you re the executive of your state, the ceo. he thought why do i want to go to washington and not get anything done. he wanted to sink his teeth in to things. i don t know if he has ambitions to run for president. that decision doesn t need to be made for a while unless we re talking sooner than later with brit. you mentioned sununu earlier and how it plays with that senate race. whether it affects that. it should. when you get these republican governors winning by decisive margins, you know, the hope if you re a republican is that they will pull across the finish line some of these embattled candidates for the senate that are in tight races. you see that in georgia, see that in florida. you see it in new hampshire. you see it elsewhere. mike dewine in ohio. how much can he help j.d. vance to get across the finish line in a tight race out there.