Jacob Bacharach: LMFAO at NYT *not* disclosing that the guy who wrote this was a clerk for John Roberts! Honestly gotta respect the game.

LMFAO at NYT *not* disclosing that the guy who wrote this was a clerk for John Roberts! Honestly gotta respect the game.

Opinion section really emptying the clip with a bump stock www.nytimes.com/2024/07/05/o...

Opinion | A Principled Supreme Court, Unnerved by Trumpwww.nytimes.com Most of the court’s decisions were principled and sound — most, but unfortunately not all.

One day after the "Why I Don't Vote" article by the guy who it turns out does, in fact, vote. Not great!

(Once the truth was revealed, they changed the title to "Why I Won't Vote")

"Why I'm pissing on your leg and telling you it's raining" probably would have won them more clicks

Jesus fucking Christ

NYT staff must start leaking the names of everyone responsible for the publication of all these terrible pieces. their own credibility as journos hangs in the balance

I (and others) think this op-ed's Republican author wrote it to condemn some Trump-related decisions as unprincipled and wrong. A worthy goal! This only makes the NYT editors' decisions *more* baffling: why not disclose the author clerked for Roberts? Why are the headline and subhed such a waffle?

Mind you, the op-ed is not generally speaking good. This guy spent years as a Republican apparatchik, he presumably drank the Flavor-Aid. His brief defense of the Court killing the regulatory state is bullshit, and he doesn't really pretend it isn't. But on the Trump decisions he's pretty clear.

If you ain’t cheatin you ain’t tryin

In fairness, "pay me," is one of the oldest principles in the world. 🤷‍♂️

He was my housemate in DC for the summer he was clerking.

When are you writing the novel, Will?

Lol. I do have half a DC novel, my MFA thesis, sitting in a "drawer." But my TWO Roberts clerk roommates never figured in.

I didn't know you knew him! (Regardless of when.)

Yes! Not very well. I was at Cato. He sublet a room in our group house that one summer. We chatted some but he was usually out early and back late, and generally quiet, wearing some old fashioned hat.

In 2005? He was still in law school then

Yeah, should be about then. Did his clerkships a bit later, I guess. Must have been a summer associate thing.

The next year I lived with Keenan Kmiec, who was clerking with Roberts at the time. I think Will was maybe with McConnell then and did SCOTUS the year after.

I worked with Keenan’s girlfriend, while he was a “day trader”

I was living in your house also. 2005 was after his first year of law school at Yale. He clerked for McConnell and then Roberts after graduation iirc

YES!

We’re back at the North Minehead By-Election where Mr. Hilter says he wants to annex Poland & his friend Ron Vibbentrop works the crowd: “He’s right, you know…” www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqJQ...

Monty Python - Mr. Hilterwww.youtube.com Del episodio "The Naked Ant" de "Monty Python's Flying Circus". Subtítulos en Españolhttp://urlsnippy.com/CompleteMontyPython?item=vyvy7t

Except this oped says that SCOTUS burned down the constitution to own the libs.

Best to read the entire oped, as it's critical of the Court's rulings on cases related to Trump. Closes with "When dealing with Mr. Trump in particular, the court is so sure that our other institutions cannot be trusted that it fails to look in the mirror."

Wow. US-media are truly mostly satire by now... How are they so self-unaware?! These people are supposed to be intellectuals! Did they all find a worm in their heads?

Commercial media exists only to sell advertising time slots.

Yes, those were slots between information and journalism earlier. Now everything is a commercial slot . With slivers of journalism. Or mostly just "entertainment".

I haven't found it free yet, but am told that the content is much better than the headline.

Only by just a bit. “The Supreme Court was principled and originalist except for two cases where they swerved wildly to protect Trump from the plain text of the Constitution” means they aren’t principled, just partisans.

It's an attack on the Court pandering to Trump in its baseless opinions rendering meaningless the 14th amendment provision barring insurrectionists from office & making him above criminal law. Here's a "gift" link I assume only works if you're the first to try it: www.nytimes.com/2024/07/05/o...

Opinion | A Principled Supreme Court, Unnerved by Trumpwww.nytimes.com Most of the court’s decisions were principled and sound — most, but unfortunately not all.

Quinta Jurecic posted that earlier today on Bluesky, reposted by some other law bloggers. I haven't read it, don't know the score.

Thanks. After reading the tongue bath he gives Roberts, hell yes, his connection should have been either disclosed or disqualifying.

If you changed "principled" to "unprincipled," it would be okay. Can't read this, but if you actually were unnerved by Trump, wouldn't you want to reign him in with the limits available?

The headline is odd. The point of the piece, other than preaching the gospel of originalism, is an attack on the court for unjustifiably rewriting the constitution to protect Trump from the criminal and electoral consequences of his illegal actions.

It's an opinion piece. Reporters are supposed to be unbiased. Opinion writers are not. If you're looking for a fair presentation of factual information in an opinion piece, you're doing it wrong. I'm pissed off at NYT about shitty stuff it's done recently, not discussing this is not a problem.

And the actual point of this piece was an attack on the Court's baseless opinions rendering meaningless the provision of the 14th amendment barring insurrectionists like Trump from office & inventing a vague immunity for criminal acts while president. Those parts are worth a read.

AYFKM?

Post