I never cease to amazed by how the mainstream media covers decisions of the Supreme Court. Indeed, I often wonder if the reporters even bother to read the decisions before writing their articles. Here are two examples:
Yesterday, the court ruled 7-2 that it does not violate the double jeopardy clause of the Constitution if an American has to answer for crimes committed under federal law and state law even if these crimes arise out of the same facts. It's not a particularly unexpected outcome; federal and state laws are normally considered separately and there's no good reason why that would change when it comes to double jeopardy. But what did the media report? Most of the stories were about how the decision would prevent Paul Manafort from being fully pardoned by president Trump because he could still be prosecuted for crimes under New York law. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, in the decision had anything to do with Manafort, pardons or the President. It didn't matter, for reporters, the key thing was to tie the result to Trump and to use it to repeat the claim that Trump was about to pardon Manafort. It's like using the weather report to discuss the political situation in the UK.
There was also another decision yesterday in which the Supreme Court sent a case back to the Court of Appeals to reconsider the decision in light of a different decision issued by the Supreme Court some months ago. This too is not unusual. Both cases dealt with claims of Gerrymandering. Since the Supreme Court already issued one decision on the subject and it came after the Court of Appeals' decision, SCOTUS decided to give the lower court a chance to reconsider its decision in light of the Supreme Court's ruling. That's a rather pedestrian result. So how does the media play this one? According to the media, the Supreme Court handed a defeat to the GOP in Virginia (the case was about the Virginia legislature.) There may be a minor effect on the next election, but that will depend on what the Court of Appeals does. If it decides to stay its prior order until it has reconsidered it, then it won't be the GOP that suffers, but rather the Democrats. No one can say how that will turn out, but the point of what the Supreme Court did is not to help or hurt one party or the other. The reporters just don't seem to get that.
Yesterday, the court ruled 7-2 that it does not violate the double jeopardy clause of the Constitution if an American has to answer for crimes committed under federal law and state law even if these crimes arise out of the same facts. It's not a particularly unexpected outcome; federal and state laws are normally considered separately and there's no good reason why that would change when it comes to double jeopardy. But what did the media report? Most of the stories were about how the decision would prevent Paul Manafort from being fully pardoned by president Trump because he could still be prosecuted for crimes under New York law. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, in the decision had anything to do with Manafort, pardons or the President. It didn't matter, for reporters, the key thing was to tie the result to Trump and to use it to repeat the claim that Trump was about to pardon Manafort. It's like using the weather report to discuss the political situation in the UK.
There was also another decision yesterday in which the Supreme Court sent a case back to the Court of Appeals to reconsider the decision in light of a different decision issued by the Supreme Court some months ago. This too is not unusual. Both cases dealt with claims of Gerrymandering. Since the Supreme Court already issued one decision on the subject and it came after the Court of Appeals' decision, SCOTUS decided to give the lower court a chance to reconsider its decision in light of the Supreme Court's ruling. That's a rather pedestrian result. So how does the media play this one? According to the media, the Supreme Court handed a defeat to the GOP in Virginia (the case was about the Virginia legislature.) There may be a minor effect on the next election, but that will depend on what the Court of Appeals does. If it decides to stay its prior order until it has reconsidered it, then it won't be the GOP that suffers, but rather the Democrats. No one can say how that will turn out, but the point of what the Supreme Court did is not to help or hurt one party or the other. The reporters just don't seem to get that.
No comments:
Post a Comment