Headlines that signal that the story will be misleading and/or stupid

[Meadmaker]

Bill Maher gives some of his own tips for spotting misleading or stupid headlines:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lap1YE0uAC8

I hope the title of the video was intentionallly ironic.

[Meadmaker]

"How Michael Cohen’s past lies make him a more credible witness"



It's wishful thinking, people. When you have to explain why lying makes you credible, something isn't going to add up.

I already read the story. Their point is that he lied to protect Trump.

What's bizarre about this whole thing, to me, is that there really isn't much "credibility" at stake here. Everyone knows who did what in this story.

[stanky]

Journalism has come a long way. Once was a time the news was told as succinctly as possible, getting right at the 'who what where how and why' of it, straight-up. Details followed for the more interested, but the headline was the gist of it. Now, the headline is as likely as not to be deceptive; its purpose being to snag your time so you'll eventually buy something. Yahoo news (garf) now runs headlines that challenge you to decide if it's real or fake.

It's evolved from the click bait of "Did Donald Trump have sex with Martha Stewart?"to "Donald Trump had sex with Martha Stewart!" and you're supposed to click it and find out if its true or not. This is a horribly slow way to stay informed. Oddly enough, almost nothing is presented as fact...and when it is, it's often not...as evidenced from the other camp reporting an opposite take on it.

Actually, it's fitting for this universe and its quirky ways. Truth is ephemeral; stuff is made of events with entropy. Time is a quantity of entropy, according to the last genius i read. Lately, i'm convinced this is a lucid dream, made out of dream stuff, animated by consciousness. It feels as real as a dream when you're in one. Time is variable and a life time might only be an hour when you wake up. Which dream is the real one; the home base? Oops. All equally real, made out of mind-wish. or some other, soapy fluid.

[Meadmaker]

Here's the headline:

Clarence Thomas attacks Brown v. Board ruling amid 70th anniversary

Now wait. Clarence Thomas is a pretty pathetic excuse for a Supreme Court Justice, and a powerful argument against lifetime appointments. However, I think attacking "Brown" is a bit too far.

I'm even very sympathetic to arguments about judicial activism, and about the belief that judges, including Supreme Court Justices, should not make laws, but only interpret them and apply thim to situations. In general, they ought to stick to what the people who passed the law were thinking, instead of trying to find some meaning that wasn't really there, or that the authors would be shocked by.

But "Brown" isn't a case like that. I'm pretty sure that at least some of the authors of the 14th ammendment very specifically wanted to end racial segregation and would have been very happy with a Supreme Court that demanded integration for public schools, and publc everything else, as well.

I have a hard time believing that Clarence Thomas doesn't agree, or that he thinks "Brown: was a bad ruling. So, what's the headline about? Well, I don't know becuae I haven't read the article, but I'm guessing that there might be some sentence in the ruling that has been extended a bit far, or there might be a complaint about how it was applied.

Let's see if Thomas is actually even stupider than I give him credit for. I don't think he actually attacked the core of the ruling. Let's see.

...............Dum dee dee.....a little music while you wait.

Insufficient data. The article features out of context quotes. I owuld have to read what Thomas actually wrote. I will, but not right now. Having read the aricle, I still suspect it's incredibly misleading, but I need more reading in order to find out for sure.

[Meadmaker]

I din't need much more reading.

In today;s ruling, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 7_3e04.pdf, Thomas didn't criticize Brown at all. He criticized Missouri v. Jenkins.

ETA: And, actually, lower court rulings in Missouri v. Jenkins. Anyway....law gets complicated. However, what isn't complicated is that the media, especially the partisan media, gets it wrong, frequently. This one was easy to predict that it would be wrong, and it was.

[President Bush]

I din't need much more reading.

In today;s ruling, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 7_3e04.pdf, Thomas didn't criticize Brown at all. He criticized Missouri v. Jenkins.

ETA: And, actually, lower court rulings in Missouri v. Jenkins. Anyway....law gets complicated. However, what isn't complicated is that the media, especially the partisan media, gets it wrong, frequently. This one was easy to predict that it would be wrong, and it was.

I think what is being referred to is what Justice Thomas wrote on pages 65-65 of the decision...

The view of equity required to justify a judicial mapdrawing power emerged only in the 1950s. The Court’s “impatience with the pace of desegregation” caused by resistance to Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 (1954), “led us to approve . . . extraordinary remedial measures,” Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U. S. 70, 125 (1995) (THOMAS, J., concurring). In the follow-on case to Brown, the Court considered “the manner in which relief [was] to be accorded” for vindication of “the fundamental principle that racial discrimination in public education is unconstitutional.” Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U. S. 294, 298 (1955) (Brown II). In doing so, the Court took a boundless view of equitable remedies, describing equity as being “characterized by a practical flexibility in shaping its remedies and by a facility for adjusting and reconciling public and private needs.” Id., at 300 (footnote omitted). That understanding may have justified temporary measures to “overcome the widespread resistance to the dictates of the Constitution” prevalent at that time, but, as a general matter, “[s]uch extravagant uses of judicial power are at odds with the history and tradition of the equity power and the Framers’ design.” Jenkins, 515 U. S., at 125–126 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). Federal courts have the power to grant only the equitable relief “traditionally accorded by courts of equity,” not the flexible power to invent whatever new remedies may seem useful at the time. Grupo Mexicano, 527 U. S., at 319.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 7_3e04.pdf

[Meadmaker]

I din't need much more reading.

In today;s ruling, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 7_3e04.pdf, Thomas didn't criticize Brown at all. He criticized Missouri v. Jenkins.

ETA: And, actually, lower court rulings in Missouri v. Jenkins. Anyway....law gets complicated. However, what isn't complicated is that the media, especially the partisan media, gets it wrong, frequently. This one was easy to predict that it would be wrong, and it was.

I think what is being referred to is what Justice Thomas wrote on pages 65-65 of the decision...

The view of equity required to justify a judicial mapdrawing power emerged only in the 1950s. The Court’s “impatience with the pace of desegregation” caused by resistance to Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 (1954), “led us to approve . . . extraordinary remedial measures,” Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U. S. 70, 125 (1995) (THOMAS, J., concurring). In the follow-on case to Brown, the Court considered “the manner in which relief [was] to be accorded” for vindication of “the fundamental principle that racial discrimination in public education is unconstitutional.” Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U. S. 294, 298 (1955) (Brown II). In doing so, the Court took a boundless view of equitable remedies, describing equity as being “characterized by a practical flexibility in shaping its remedies and by a facility for adjusting and reconciling public and private needs.” Id., at 300 (footnote omitted). That understanding may have justified temporary measures to “overcome the widespread resistance to the dictates of the Constitution” prevalent at that time, but, as a general matter, “[s]uch extravagant uses of judicial power are at odds with the history and tradition of the equity power and the Framers’ design.” Jenkins, 515 U. S., at 125–126 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). Federal courts have the power to grant only the equitable relief “traditionally accorded by courts of equity,” not the flexible power to invent whatever new remedies may seem useful at the time. Grupo Mexicano, 527 U. S., at 319.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 7_3e04.pdf

Exactly. And the article got it wrong. Thomas is saying that in Brown, the court found "the fundamental principle that racial discrimination is unconstitutional". Thomas has no objection or criticism of that finding. However, in order to "overcome the widespread resistance to the dictates of the Consitution", i.e. overcome the resistance to school integration, there were court ordered remedies. Thomas found, in Jenkins, overturning lower court imposed remedies, that "such extravagant uses of judicial power are at odds with the history and tradition of equity power and the Framers' design".

He isn't criticizing Brown at all. He is criticizing the courts who, in attempting to address the problem found by Brown, exceed their judicial authority.

Axios wanted a headline that said Thomas was such an awful scum that he doesn't even accept Brown v. Board of Education. It's not true.

(He's awful scum for other reasons, but that's not what the article is about.)

[President Bush]

Far as I can tell Justice Thomas is saying that courts ruling racial segregation to be unconstitutional... is unconstitutional.

Then there's this:

In the case decided Thursday, Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the N.A.A.C.P., No. 22-807, the court’s majority held that courts must generally credit lawmakers’ assertions that their goal in redistricting was partisan, which is permissible, rather than based on race, which is not. “We start with a presumption that the legislature acted in good faith,” Justice Alito wrote.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/23/us/s ... g-map.html

oh, okay.

[Meadmaker]

Far as I can tell Justice Thomas is saying that courts ruling racial segregation to be unconstitutional... is unconstitutional.

He is saying the exact opposite.

[President Bush]

Far as I can tell Justice Thomas is saying that courts ruling racial segregation to be unconstitutional... is unconstitutional.

He is saying the exact opposite.

Don't know how you get that.