This is the kind of shit I was talking about when I described the culture of supreme court reporting being one of extraordinary deference to the justices www.washingtonpost.com/politics/202...
My exhibit A is Nina Totenburg at NPR, but there's an almost Salo-type cult(?) around the Supreme Court, in that it is a credentially factory for (some) legal academia which feeds into the upper echelons of the legal profession.
And leads to commentators trading for access or being Kremlinologists
When Alito came after me for correctly describing the texas abortion bounty law shadow docket ruling as nullifying Roe in Texas the Times and the Post reported his attacks but did not even link to the piece so readers could determine if I was right (I was)
I remember your interview on Strict Scrutiny (it was a great interview) and Alito's bristling at the charge of nullification, which really revealed Alito's thin-skinnedness.
And you were right and it was a great article. Please write more.
i haven't read *all* your stuff, but what i have seen suggests your correctness of reporting is on a trend line approaching 1.
i.e. maybe we'll never hit 1 (100%) but the data suggests otherwise
Yeah the kremlinology analogy is apt because the whole situation is a direct consequence of the fact that it is an institution designed to be beyond transparency or accountability, unlike either of the other two branches
Kremlinologist label springs to mind as one of the labels about a lot of SCOTUS commentariat, where a lot of (mostly) meaningless occurences and minutae of opinions are exteapolated into shaky pronouncements that obscure power and agency at the Court.
As I mentioned above, Iran’s Guardian Council is another good comparison because it is often pointed to as evidence that Iran’s system of government is fundamentally undemocratic and yet
I mean all this checks and balances shit only came about because the Founders and the classical liberal philosophers thought that the peerage played a valuable functional role that needed to be preserved in a Republican system
When I read her book I felt like I was taking crazy pills. How had she kept her job? How was no one talking about her lack of ethics? How was she so oblivious that she wrote a whole book about her lack of ethics like it was a charming story?
