Max, you certainly have strong views on the case!

Today, the SCOTUS record is so dismal that all I have is snark. As I’ve written before (with a bunch of links that won’t carry through here), “Don’t believe all that hooey about the Roberts Court being principled because they are protective of First Amendment rights. They’re not, not unless a corporation is the one “speaking” and the ‘speech’ is for profit, or unless the speech poses no threat to corporate interests, like dog-crushing videos or homophobic protests of soldiers’ funerals. Peacefully protest Wall Street and you’ll be pepper-sprayed in the face, with free speech rights that are ambiguous at best and rights against police violence almost impossible to enforce.”

I have no confidence they’ll offer anything but nonsense in this case, and I presume that the five conservatives will dodge the larger and thornier questions — the ones they have a constitutional duty to address — by inventing some reason the “plain meaning” shows they can’t quash the subpoena.