Don’t worry–Kozinski said the same thing.

With respect to this issue, the better answer is to subtly fight back against the lese-majeste ethic that we have in this country towards the bench. At the end of the day, the Supreme Court in this case tolerated the clear abuse of the rights of a free citizen. That’s a problem. If we want to wax poetic about the “majesty of the courts” and all that hooey, then how is this casual tyranny acceptable? What answer would there be if the student showed up and asked one of the Justices, “Why did you tolerate a government official ordering me not to speak? Why weren’t my rights important enough for your time?’ There really isn’t an acceptable answer.

To borrow my sentiments from an earlier post (about Roberts and Trump), what business does Roberts have trying to hector the rest of us to respect an institution, i.e., the federal courts, that tolerate (nay, affirmatively endorse) a government official ordering a citizen not to speak?

Everyone makes mistakes—but it’s hard to believe that the Fourth Circuit’s mistake here was in good faith. The law on prior restraints is very clear. Shouldn’t Roberts be doing more to stop this than lecturing Trump about the supposed irrelevance of who appointed the judges (which we all know, of course, is NOT irrelevant).

That’s why the 2nd Amendment is so important (And No!, this isn’t a call to arms)

I get that the Supreme Court is busy etc., but doesn’t each acquiescence in the face of an erosion of rights risk the tyranny our founders warned against. If government officials can order people to be quiet on the pain of some adverse government action, aren’t we all a little less free?

Maybe it’s time for SCOTUS to work a little harder.