But now I see the NYT article has nearly the same headline: "Supreme Court Prepares to Take On Politically Charged Cases."
Politically Charged!!!
Is that some kind of secret code or do court-focused reporters just naturally end up there? The idea — as observed in the earlier post — is, I think, that ordinary reader will only be interested in the court if they feel that it's really politics. That's simple titillation. But, of course, I must also suspect The Washington Post and The New York Times of continually massaging its readers into voting for liberals, and creating anxiety about the Court's effect on political issues is the longstanding convention.
But "politically charged" is a great phrase, one I'm going to watch. It lets you call things political without taking responsibility for charging anyone with responsibility for the politically charge. For example, it was said that the Pope's visit to the U.S. was "politically charged," but that didn't mean the Pope is a politico. He might be, but the headline wasn't saying so.
ADDED: The New York Times celebrates the tweeting expertise of Donald Trump in "Pithy, Mean and Powerful: How Donald Trump Mastered Twitter for 2016."
In an interview at his office — interrupted repeatedly by Mr. Trump’s picking up his Samsung Galaxy cellphone, loading new tweets with his index finger and marveling at his nonstop mentions (“Watch this!” he implored) — the candidate compared his Twitter feed to a newspaper with a single, glorious voice: his own.Much more at the link.
“The Ernest Hemingway of a hundred and forty characters,” he said, quoting a fan.
In the past, Mr. Trump said, when dealing with a dishonest rival “there was nothing you can do other than sue.”
“Which I’ve done,” he added. “But it’s a long process.”
Now, he simply tweets. Caustically, colorfully and repeatedly.
Suddenly, he said of his foes, “I have more power than they do. I can let people know that they were a fraud... I can let people know that they have no talent, that they didn’t know what they’re doing. You have a voice.”
17 comments:
They're playing the charge card.
It's all politically charged, all the time.
Did I slight Adam Liptak?
No. Mr. Liptak's writing is self-defecating.
Well at least we know they all got the same talking points............
How about,
"SUPREMES GO POLITICAL!"
Pithy, huh?
Or...
"POLITICALLY PUMPED COURT"
without taking responsibility
Right in the media's wheelhouse, that. "Mistakes were made". "The servers were wiped". "Jewish Man Dies as Rocks Pelt His Car in East Jerusalem".
Political means a team effort to take governmental authority.
The Supremes have had as much of that as they say they have since Marbury v. Madison.
So October is the 9 man/woman teams on display in the World Series and the Supremes Series... Best 5. Out of 7 in one and best 5 out of 9 in the other.
Then there's...
"SUPREME POLITICAL AGENDA"
Sub-headline:
"America's Angst"
Like Rush says, everything is politics.
Could you also slight Dahlia Withlick and Nina Totebag while you're at it?
Or highlighting the reporter...
"LOOSE LIPtak LEAKS LAW LINEUP"
I wonder if Obama would assert in public that particular cases before the SCOTUS "should be politicized"?
I'm certain he believes that, and I'm pretty sure he could be induced to admit that in public in the right circumstances.
I doubt there's anything -- any topic, any vote, any discussion -- that Obama wouldn't like to politicize. But it would be particularly enjoyable to see him admit that the phrase "Rule of Law" is, to him, just an abstract annoyance.
Isn't it fair to say, if an issue wasn't "politically charged", it wouldn't be before the Supreme Court?
If not politically charged, no group would care to take it to SCOTUS.
The case I am interested in is Nebraska v. Parker involving the Village of Pender. I have been to Pender many times and it is obvious that the white settlers would not have built the town at its location unless they were sure that it was excluded from the Indian reservation.
But four federal judges basically ignored the third element of the applicable test and didn't even examine the expectations of the parties at the time the land was sold to white settlers.
Five - four in favor of the Village and the Rule of Law.
So far Pender has spent $685,000 fighting the Tribe's power grab after over one hundred years of peace.
I noticed the same angle on the Supreme Court in an AP story I glanced at this morning. One of the things wrong with journalism today that is that the vast majority of journalists think exactly the same way.
Post a Comment