John Bolton: Judge rejects Trump bid to ban ex-adviser's book
Since a member of the judiciary has decided against the administration and the Justice Department, I suggest criminal and executive action, particularly if the Supreme Court is now presented with the question and declines to reverse the lower court ruling.
Why should the First Amendment any longer protect anyone if it willy nilly meanwhile protects leakers, traitors, and a press which has proved itself totally without scruple, and protects the internet itself against the government, an internet which the Court acknowledges is truly now above the law and outside the reach of the Court?
The ruling is an acknowledgment of the failure and the breakdown of a political system itself, not merely that of a sitting President himself, by its own hand.
The internet and www have been self inflicted wounds for the West.
Why should the First Amendment any longer protect anyone if it willy nilly meanwhile protects leakers, traitors, and a press which has proved itself totally without scruple, and protects the internet itself against the government, an internet which the Court acknowledges is truly now above the law and outside the reach of the Court?
The ruling is an acknowledgment of the failure and the breakdown of a political system itself, not merely that of a sitting President himself, by its own hand.
The internet and www have been self inflicted wounds for the West.
No comments:
Post a Comment