'The Supreme Court has no excuse for being so opaque about its practices.' @rickhasen on SCOTUS secrets: http://at.law.com/VD3SXh
-
My proposal doesn't require release of "private" info about deliberations.Just cert votes, which should be public
@MikeScarcella@rickhasen
@espinsegall @MikeScarcella but they are currently private, no?
-
-
You said deliberations. I just want the final votes public. There are no reasons to keep them private (as they are now, yes). RT
@rickhasen -
.
@espinsegall fair enough point. I should have been more precise in my language. thanks. -
No worries, glad you're talking about this issue. RT
@rickhasen: fair enough point. I should have been more precise in my language thanks.”
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@rickhasen@espinsegall@MikeScarcella As opposed to deliberations, correspondence, drafts, cert memos, etc, which are indirect and private. -
Thanks David, exactly. Mostly, there should be presumption of openness not presumption of secrecy. RT
@djsziff@rickhasen@MikeScarcella
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@rickhasen@espinsegall@MikeScarcella I take it he means public in the sense they are official acts w/ direct effects on Court public acts.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.