Thanks as always for clearly laying out the context of this issue. Your argument pushes me further toward the opinion that the report was probably faked. That said, I don't think the Supreme Court should have made a decision without a representative of the website present or unless it could show that irreparable harm would be caused by leaving the report online for another minute. But that raises the question: is the SC the correct venue for this hearing as one of its own justices is involved?
Thanks as always for clearly laying out the context of this issue. Your argument pushes me further toward the opinion that the report was probably faked. That said, I don't think the Supreme Court should have made a decision without a representative of the website present or unless it could show that irreparable harm would be caused by leaving the report online for another minute. But that raises the question: is the SC the correct venue for this hearing as one of its own justices is involved?