these sensationalized stories are overlooking that Roberts still didn’t have unilateral control over the court.

The other justices still had their ability to object and write their own opinions.

This is all just really misleading sensationalism and it needs to be called out for the journalistic malpractice that it is, misleading readers for the sake of clicks.

@volkris

I think it is important journalism, doing the job of informing the populace of the biases of our Chief Justice. Many seem to think of Roberts as more moderate than he clearly is.

except that the biases of the Chief Justice are held in check by the fact that he doesn’t get to just do whatever he wants. He is at the mercy of all of the other justices.

And that’s the point, these sensational headlines give an impression that run counter to how our government actually operates, and so these journalists need to knock that stuff off because the population ends up misinformed.

@volkris

of course he can do whatever he wants, as can the other Justices, and this is not disputed. I don't understand your problem with giving readers this view of Roberts.

since the other justices can do whatever they want, it’s troubling to see this story going around that promotes the community that Roberts is controlling them all.

That’s the problem.

So many people are getting that message and repeating it on social media, but it’s outright false, it’s something of a conspiracy theory when we could really use a lot less of those.

@volkris

I don't see that. I see an exposure of Roberts' values, which are not those moderate values we seem to have believed

@volkris

or maybe we just disagree

it’s like disagreeing about whether the world is round. Okay. Maybe we just disagree. In my opinion, it’s pretty foolish to be a flat earther, but go for it I guess.

It doesn’t seem like a productive way to go though.

@volkris

no -- it's not about scientific fact, but political -- an area ripe for disagreement

no because there are actual rules for how the US government works.

Sure, one can have an opinion about whether those rules are good or bad, but they are what they are. You might as well be denying that there exists a supreme Court at all.

No, it exists. And it doesn’t work the way you seem to think it works.

@volkris

because I am interested in having Roberts' ideology broadcast, I don't understand how the SCOTUS works? Quite a stretch.

it’s not though.

Because anyone who knows how the Supreme Court works would know that these claims just aren’t true. It’s real simple. So if you are interested in spreading these silly stories, well that directly speaks to not understanding how the court works.

It’s like how people spreading flat Earth stories don’t understand how astronomy works or how people spreading vaccine disinformation don’t understand how biology works. If you’re spreading the silly stories, then you don’t understand how it works.

@volkris

it's not silly if it's true and gives a better indication of how the Chief Justice decides -- of course he doesn't make the decisions on his own, all the other Justices make theirs as well, but to better understand any or all of them gives greater depth to understanding their decisions

Yes. Exactly. It’s not true.

The public record shows that it’s not true.

So you put your finger on it there.