Chief Supreme Court analyst and Fredo Corleone of Nina Totenberg's Joan Biskupic picked up the torch from there to gush over Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent in the trans athlete case, in which she argued:
"how terrible it was going to be in terms of fairness on the
competitive field."
Huh?
What you're not supposed to notice is that it's the conservative
majority that just rescued one of the public's most cherished rights
from the fire heap.
Or that the progressive chattering class only extolls the sacred value
of stare decisis when it serves their political interests.
At the root of this parade of misfires, distortions, and outright lies
- all of which were promulgated in only about 15 minutes of airtime -
is the fact that it's the Left that approaches legal questions in
exactly the shameful manner that it pretends the Right does.
It's the Democratic appointees to the bench who vote as a bloc on every single high-profile, politically sensitive case. It's they who were appointed to promote a worldview rather than uphold the law. And it's
their cheerleaders in liberal media who have worked tirelessly to delegitimize Article III in the eyes of the public.
The cost of that campaign? Its participants' dignity and professional
pride.
They're all too happy to pay up.
Everyone holds a grudge against some product so poor it's unusable. The
pan to which everything sticks; the deodorant that transforms the smell
of sweat into a chemical weapon; the vile beer you haven't raised to
your lips since you were 19;
CNN's coverage of the Supreme Court is similarly dismal.
There are exceptions that ought to be acknowledged up front. Chief
legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid traffics mostly in
straightforward summaries and scoops, and senior legal analyst Elie
Honig is among the most evenhanded and able in the entire industry (his takedown of disgraced Manhattan District Attorney and unwitting Trump
2024 campaign co-chair Alvin Bragg made for a particularly enjoyable
and richly deserved demonstration of his fair-minded aptitude.)
But by and large: dismal.
Tuesday was particularly instructive. The Supreme Court released a pair
of decisions celebrated by conservatives on the topics of campaign
finance and transgender athletes before striking down President Donald Trump's attempt to do away with birthright citizenship in its most
highly anticipated opinion of the term.
It was a representative finale, as the Court has spent months serving
up mixed bags that have driven the president to his wit's end. Among
the other subjects he's suffered losses on: tariffs, mail-in ballot deadlines, and the employment status of Federal Reserve Board member
Lisa Cook.
Nevertheless, a panel on Tuesday's edition of Inside Politics breaking
down this final spate of cases appears to have been assembled for the express purpose of advancing a preposterous narrative about the Court's supposed partisan bent.
After The New York Times' Tyler Pager observed that Trump was likely to
lash out over the birthright citizenship ruling, host Manu Raju
insisted that the Court "did allow him to push the bounds of what he
can do."
Moments later, the discussion turned to National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, the aforementioned campaign finance case in which the Court held that the congressionally-imposed
limits on the amount of money that can be spent by political parties in coordination with candidates violate the First Amendment - and devolved
into a stunning demonstration of its participants' juvenile hackery.
Raju characterized it as "a big win for Republicans, who were pushing
to gut the post-Watergate rules." You get all that? Republicans are desperate, to the point of violent metaphors to bring back Watergate-
style corruption. Never mind the facts of the actual case, which had
nothing to do with the scandal that drove Richard Nixon from office, or
that the ruling cuts both ways. Just take CNN at its word.
It only got worse from there. NPR's Ayesha Rascoe complained that while "people" want to see money taken "out of politics," the Court has moved
"in the totally opposite direction." As a liberal, her misunderstanding
of the American constitutional order - the judiciary is designed to be
a check on the political branches, not a super-legislature that rubber stamps the whims of the "people" at any given point in time - is to be expected. As a professional political commentator, it's embarrassing.
Not to be outdone, Georgetown University law professor Steve Vladeck marveled that "this Supreme Court" is "unapologetic" about "overruling
its own precedent," and parroted Justice Elena Kagan's protest that
"we're supposed to have good reasons for overturning these precedents" before repeating Rascoe's inane point about public sentiment.
Arbitrary, undue restrictions on political speech don't qualify as a
"good reason" in Vladeck's book? Spare a prayer for this man's poor students. They're paying over $80,000 a year in tuition to be
misinformed by a slack-jawed blowhard.
Chief Supreme Court analyst and Fredo Corleone of Nina Totenberg's Joan Biskupic picked up the torch from there to gush over Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent in the trans athlete case, in which she argued:
"how terrible it was going to be in terms of fairness on the
competitive field."
Huh?
She went on to declare that interpersonal tension between the justices
could be chalked up to the fact that "the conservative members of the
Court were chosen for certain reasons, and they were chosen for their vigilance on the kinds of rulings that-"
"And their reliability," chimed in Vladeck.
"-not just President Trump might want, but the Republican Party would
want. That was the whole point," concluded Biskupic.
"Well, the word reliability, I think, is an important one because it's exactly why the Court is constantly criticized. Because overturning precedent is not just a matter of throwing away trash," declared chief
legal analyst Laura Coates. " It really is if the American public has
chosen these nine Supreme Court justices in terms of a body that is
supposed to provide the consistency, reliability so people can manage
their lives accordingly, every time you overturn precedent, you
undermine the ability of the American public, let alone the voting
public, to understand the world in which they live and operate, and the balance of power. And so if they are in the business of deciding what
we just said no longer applies, then how can the American public be in
the habit of understanding what laws and rights they retain, and what
will end up on the fire heap."
What you're not supposed to notice is that it's the conservative
majority that just rescued one of the public's most cherished rights
from the fire heap.
Or that the progressive chattering class only extolls the sacred value
of stare decisis when it serves their political interests.
At the root of this parade of misfires, distortions, and outright lies
- all of which were promulgated in only about 15 minutes of airtime -
is the fact that it's the Left that approaches legal questions in
exactly the shameful manner that it pretends the Right does.
It's the Democratic appointees to the bench who vote as a bloc on every single high-profile, politically sensitive case. It's they who were appointed to promote a worldview rather than uphold the law. And it's
their cheerleaders in liberal media who have worked tirelessly to delegitimize Article III in the eyes of the public.
The cost of that campaign? Its participants' dignity and professional
pride.
They're all too happy to pay up.
On Jul 3, 2026 at 1:30:42 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
Chief Supreme Court analyst and Fredo Corleone of Nina Totenberg's Joan
Biskupic picked up the torch from there to gush over Justice Sonia
Sotomayor's dissent in the trans athlete case, in which she argued:
"how terrible it was going to be in terms of fairness on the
competitive field."
Huh?
I will point the learned justice to my earlier thread here in RAT (#1
Female Tennis Player vs. #644 Male Tennis Player) demonstrating how this >decision will only increase fairness on the competitive field, not harm it.
What you're not supposed to notice is that it's the conservative
majority that just rescued one of the public's most cherished rights
from the fire heap.
Or that the progressive chattering class only extolls the sacred value
of stare decisis when it serves their political interests.
At the root of this parade of misfires, distortions, and outright lies
- all of which were promulgated in only about 15 minutes of airtime -
is the fact that it's the Left that approaches legal questions in
exactly the shameful manner that it pretends the Right does.
It's the Democratic appointees to the bench who vote as a bloc on every
single high-profile, politically sensitive case. It's they who were
appointed to promote a worldview rather than uphold the law. And it's
their cheerleaders in liberal media who have worked tirelessly to
delegitimize Article III in the eyes of the public.
The cost of that campaign? Its participants' dignity and professional
pride.
They're all too happy to pay up.
+100
Isn't Nina Totenberg the journalist who said she'd give Bill Clinton
a Lewinski for all his support for abortions?
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> writes:
Isn't Nina Totenberg the journalist who said she'd give Bill Clinton
a Lewinski for all his support for abortions?
a: your misogynistic garbage is tiresome
Everyone holds a grudge against some product so poor it's unusable. The
pan to which everything sticks; the deodorant that transforms the smell
of sweat into a chemical weapon; the vile beer you haven't raised to
your lips since you were 19; much of the Disney Star Wars catalog.
CNN's coverage of the Supreme Court is similarly dismal.
There are exceptions that ought to be acknowledged up front. Chief
legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid traffics mostly in
straightforward summaries and scoops, and senior legal analyst Elie
Honig is among the most evenhanded and able in the entire industry (his takedown of disgraced Manhattan District Attorney and unwitting Trump
2024 campaign co-chair Alvin Bragg made for a particularly enjoyable
and richly deserved demonstration of his fair-minded aptitude.)
But by and large: dismal.
Tuesday was particularly instructive. The Supreme Court released a pair
of decisions celebrated by conservatives on the topics of campaign
finance and transgender athletes before striking down President Donald Trump's attempt to do away with birthright citizenship in its most
highly anticipated opinion of the term.
It was a representative finale, as the Court has spent months serving
up mixed bags that have driven the president to his wit's end. Among
the other subjects he's suffered losses on: tariffs, mail-in ballot deadlines, and the employment status of Federal Reserve Board member
Lisa Cook.
Nevertheless, a panel on Tuesday's edition of Inside Politics breaking
down this final spate of cases appears to have been assembled for the express purpose of advancing a preposterous narrative about the Court's supposed partisan bent.
After The New York Times' Tyler Pager observed that Trump was likely to
lash out over the birthright citizenship ruling, host Manu Raju
insisted that the Court "did allow him to push the bounds of what he
can do."
Moments later, the discussion turned to National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, the aforementioned campaign finance case in which the Court held that the congressionally-imposed
limits on the amount of money that can be spent by political parties in coordination with candidates violate the First Amendment - and devolved
into a stunning demonstration of its participants' juvenile hackery.
Raju characterized it as "a big win for Republicans, who were pushing
to gut the post-Watergate rules." You get all that? Republicans are desperate, to the point of violent metaphors to bring back Watergate-
style corruption. Never mind the facts of the actual case, which had
nothing to do with the scandal that drove Richard Nixon from office, or
that the ruling cuts both ways. Just take CNN at its word.
It only got worse from there. NPR's Ayesha Rascoe complained that while "people" want to see money taken "out of politics," the Court has moved
"in the totally opposite direction." As a liberal, her misunderstanding
of the American constitutional order - the judiciary is designed to be
a check on the political branches, not a super-legislature that rubber stamps the whims of the "people" at any given point in time - is to be expected. As a professional political commentator, it's embarrassing.
Not to be outdone, Georgetown University law professor Steve Vladeck marveled that "this Supreme Court" is "unapologetic" about "overruling
its own precedent," and parroted Justice Elena Kagan's protest that
"we're supposed to have good reasons for overturning these precedents" before repeating Rascoe's inane point about public sentiment.
Arbitrary, undue restrictions on political speech don't qualify as a
"good reason" in Vladeck's book? Spare a prayer for this man's poor students. They're paying over $80,000 a year in tuition to be
misinformed by a slack-jawed blowhard.
Chief Supreme Court analyst and Fredo Corleone of Nina Totenberg's Joan Biskupic picked up the torch from there to gush over Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent in the trans athlete case, in which she argued:
"how terrible it was going to be in terms of fairness on the
competitive field."
Huh?
She went on to declare that interpersonal tension between the justices
could be chalked up to the fact that "the conservative members of the
Court were chosen for certain reasons, and they were chosen for their vigilance on the kinds of rulings that-"
"And their reliability," chimed in Vladeck.
"-not just President Trump might want, but the Republican Party would
want. That was the whole point," concluded Biskupic.
"Well, the word reliability, I think, is an important one because it's exactly why the Court is constantly criticized. Because overturning precedent is not just a matter of throwing away trash," declared chief
legal analyst Laura Coates. " It really is if the American public has
chosen these nine Supreme Court justices in terms of a body that is
supposed to provide the consistency, reliability so people can manage
their lives accordingly, every time you overturn precedent, you
undermine the ability of the American public, let alone the voting
public, to understand the world in which they live and operate, and the balance of power. And so if they are in the business of deciding what
we just said no longer applies, then how can the American public be in
the habit of understanding what laws and rights they retain, and what
will end up on the fire heap."
What you're not supposed to notice is that it's the conservative
majority that just rescued one of the public's most cherished rights
from the fire heap.
Or that the progressive chattering class only extolls the sacred value
of stare decisis when it serves their political interests.
At the root of this parade of misfires, distortions, and outright lies
- all of which were promulgated in only about 15 minutes of airtime -
is the fact that it's the Left that approaches legal questions in
exactly the shameful manner that it pretends the Right does.
It's the Democratic appointees to the bench who vote as a bloc on every single high-profile, politically sensitive case. It's they who were appointed to promote a worldview rather than uphold the law. And it's
their cheerleaders in liberal media who have worked tirelessly to delegitimize Article III in the eyes of the public.
The cost of that campaign? Its participants' dignity and professional
pride.
They're all too happy to pay up.
| Sysop: | Scott Duensing |
|---|---|
| Location: | Freeburg, IL, USA, Earth |
| Users: | 5 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 495479:51:48 |
| Calls: | 5 |
| Messages: | 23,642 |