A short but cogent analysis of the unexpectedly not-terrible SCOTUS emerging at the tail end of this term. Josh Marshall is a smart observer of government, and he makes an interesting argument that I think has some real value.
A short but cogent analysis of the unexpectedly not-terrible SCOTUS emerging at the tail end of this term. Josh Marshall is a smart observer of government, and he makes an interesting argument that I think has some real value.
I don’t imagine you actually read the article? Otherwise you wouldn’t be arguing against a position that neither the article nor I take.
You’re right I didn’t, and maybe I should have, but I would argue that it’s also just unhealthy for an article to have a title that’s completely antithetical to what it’s actually saying.
Maybe the fault was mine, for including a piece from the Editor’s Blog (which is a bit more informal than most of TPM’s reporting and assumes familiarity with their other work).
I forget who originally said that whenever you see a headline with a question mark (colloquially referred to as the Cavuto Mark, after Fox’s Neil Cavuto, perhaps the most prominent practitioner), the answer is almost always ‘no,’ but it’s been such a piece of conventional wisdom that I didn’t realize it was more widely understood as such.