I have frequently shared my theory that the information environment we inhabit is a major cause of our current disarray–that the ability of Americans to “curate” a fact environment that conforms to our biases allows us–indeed, encourages us– to inhabit very different realities.
What I haven’t previously appreciated is the extent to which even accomplished, educated people, people who should know better, deliberately choose sources that confirm rather than challenge their preferred worldviews. That blind spot is probably an outcome of my own professional experience–lawyers and academics are forced by those professions to take note of contending beliefs and positions, if only to counter or analyze them. It never would have occurred to me that Supreme Court Justices–people who must review arguments from litigants pressing wildly different perspectives, jurists who were once lawyers, after all– would be guilty of selecting their information sources in order to confirm or buttress their desired realities.
According to an article in The New Republic, I’ve been very naive.
The article, titled “Where Do Conservative Supreme Court Justices Get Their Information?” was triggered by recent oral arguments in an important voting rights case. A review of the Justices’ comments suggested to the author that the right wing of the high court has a “suspect media diet.”
The article noted that some thirteen years ago, when an interviewer asked Justice Scalia about his media diet, Scalia had responded that he just read The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times–that he had once gotten The Washington Post, “but it just … went too far for me. I couldn’t handle it anymore.”
The Journal, at the time, had the most prominent conservative editorial board among major newspapers, while the Times had an even more right-wing reputation. What’s wrong with the Post, Senior asked? “It was the treatment of almost any conservative issue,” Scalia explained. “It was slanted and often nasty. And, you know, why should I get upset every morning? I don’t think I’m the only one. I think they lost subscriptions partly because they became so shrilly, shrilly liberal.”
As an old saying has it, reality has a liberal bias…
The author noted that Scalia’s admission had come to mind during oral arguments in Watson v. Republican National Committee, a GOP legal challenge to a Mississippi election law allowing mail-in ballots to be counted so long as they were postmarked by Election Day and received within the subsequent five days. Numerous states have similar laws.
“A Supreme Court nominee won’t tell the Senate anything specific about how they’d rule in future cases.”
In recent Hearings WE have watched now sitting Supreme Court nominees say under oath they would NOT overturn previous Supreme Court rulings then watched as they did just that.
It would be nice if maga supreme court judges looked to the Constitution first as their source of information.
This is why the Senate is so important. If the D’s, by some miracle, win it in the mid-terms, I hope they will do a McConnell and stymie anyone who t*ump nominates to SCOTUS.
Great idea!
James, I love your sentiment, but Thomas and Alito will have to leave feet-first, so don’t hold your breath on any new Justices before 2029.
Well, OF COURSE Scalia saw the Post as a liberal rag. It’s how the Federalist Society works and Scalia, I think, was one of its founders. Their bias is cooked in.
Speaking of cooked, if the court rules in favor of Trump’s assaults on voting rights and state-controlled voting, we as a democracy are truly cooked too.
“The article, titled “Where Do Conservative Supreme Court Justices Get Their Information?” was triggered by recent oral arguments in an important voting rights case. A review of the Justices’ comments suggested to the author that the right wing of the high court has a “suspect media diet.”
My question is where do they get their orders; news reports today stated Trump will be sitting in on the SCOTUS hearing today on Birthright Citizenship, has any president ever done this before? And is he pressuring SCOTUS to remove Birthright Citizenship (which he has threatened he can use against American citizens) or to ensure his own FOUR ANCHOR BABIES born to his two immigrant wives will not be included?
Vern,
You are so right! We will truly be cooked and it won’t be a medium rare. It will be well done (not done well). It will be the first step to nationalization of voting. The impact on states like Colorado, where everyone votes by mail will be huge. The fact that it is clearly unconstitutional doesn’t seem to bother those “originalist” justices one little bit.
Don’t think Orange Jesus won’t appoint a woman. Remember he owes one of them big time. Envision, if you will, Justice Cannon taking her seat on the court. Despite the fact that she doesn’t seem to know the law or the Constitution, she would be confirmed under the McConnell rules.
Gee, I can remember when the selection of where one got his news was limited, but very much displayed. Here in Indy, back in the day, one read the Star ( right of Ike ), the News ( right but a milder rehash ), or the Times ( left and dangerously new ). And much as today, people socialized with those they felt comfortable with, namely those of like race, religious beliefs, and school experiences.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Apparently, Scalia, and others can not be bothered by concepts they, personally, can not accept, tolerate, etc.
Amazingly, we seem to have created the very system that might bring us down.
A fellow, here, who shot his neighbor dead, is reported to be a flat Earther, and Hegseth is blathering about aliens.
And, some people will buy it.