Unfortunately, the news cycle is now going to focus on the alleged attempted assassination of former president Trump. It is unfortunate because the New York Times story published Sunday about the Roberts Court is truly historic. I don't think any American has ever read an article like this before. The Supreme Court has been shielded by hermetic secrecy for at least the past Century. Such inside views into court deliberations and internal decisions are remarkable. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/15/us/justice-roberts-trump-supreme-court.html?smid=nytcore-android-share
@guacamayan no the New York Times article was not truly historic, it was sensationalism that misleads the public about how their government works.
No, Roberts does not have such unilateral control of the Court as the headlines and the article leads people to believe. It's really irresponsible of New York Times, but then that's just how that outlet has been going in recent years.
We really need to call them out for how antisocial they are.
@guacamayan I'm specifically saying that Roberts doesn't have the unilateral power that the article claims.
I am specifically criticizing the article for misleading the audience about how the Supreme Court works. The Chief Justice does not get to just order the rulings he wants, though that is the impression the article gives.
And this is why so many of us have lost faith in journalism these days, because these sensational, clickbait headlines just don't match reality.
@volkris the article I linked to goes on at length about internal negotiations and deal making. It never says Roberts has unlimited power.
It sounds like you want to rant from an anonymous account about people who work hard, put names on their work, and face both legal and physical consequences. Ciao pescado
@guacamayan well that's exactly what I'm saying, once again NYT publishes something with headlines that don't even really match the substance of the article.
Yeah, Supreme Court justices discuss things among themselves and then they come to their conclusions.
There's no big news there. But, the paper frames it as if Roberts is conducting some sort of coup, like he's directing the whole thing, which is just not factually correct when you get to the substance.
That's my entire point here. This is misleading. Even if the substance of the NYT content does clarify things, which I'm not sure it does, that's not the takeaway that people are echoing around social media right now.
What I want to rant about is the state of journalism. So often I hear panel discussions where journalists go back and forth not being able to figure out why people lose faith in them. Well, this. This is why people lose faith in journalists. And it's a damn shame.
@volkris even one specific critique would make me believe you had read the article