One could only imagine the attitude of the usual pro-abortion newspapers — The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Texas Tribune—if a judge they liked asked the parties involved in a an abortion case not to tell the world of the timing of their first appearance in court. But if they disapprove—as they most certainly do of U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk—there is nothing he could say or do that would not be “very irregular,” or “part of a series of highly unusual steps,” or “unprecedented.”
So what was Judge Kacsmaryk’s motive in what the newspapers insist is “limiting transparency”?