SCOTUSblog's Best Trolling Of People Who Think Its Twitter Account Is The Supreme Court Itself
from the the-failures-of-autocomplete dept
We've written a few times about SCOTUSblog and the trouble it's been having getting a press pass for the Supreme Court due mainly to institutional jealousy from reporters at more mainstream publications -- who rarely do nearly as good a job covering the Supreme Court. However, for years, SCOTUSblog has faced a different issue: the fact that many people on Twitter quickly assume that the @SCOTUSblog account on Twitter is actually the Supreme Court itself, rather than a private news organization that covers the Supreme Court.That can create some ridiculous situations, especially when lots of people have a rather passionate opinion about a particular Supreme Court ruling and (of course) rush to Twitter to vent their frustrations (or joy). Assuming you haven't been living under a rock, you may have heard about the Supreme Court's ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. That ruling hits on a whole variety of hot button issues likely to bring out very strong opinions: religion, health care, health insurance, women's rights, free speech, regulations on how companies can act, etc. And, not surprisingly, this lead a bunch of people to lash out at the SCOTUSblog Twitter account, without recognizing that it wasn't actually the Supreme Court itself. And, then, SCOTUSblog decided to play along, retweeting some of the crazy attacks and responding to them in a hilarious, trolling fashion. Here are just a few of the best ones:
Um…… -Amy. RT @VictoriaaC0418: Hey @SCOTUSblog … Thanks for treating women like second class citizens.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014
Noted. -Scalia MT @ypiddle: @SCOTUSblog You sided with the crazies. Good job!! Tell your boys to keep their thingies in their pants.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014
When you start reading our description. MT @ProgressivesWin: @SCOTUSblog When will you start honoring the constitution. #5OldBigots
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014
File a petition MT @yenisargueta: Thanks for not giving me the choice to my own body @SCOTUSblog Can I get carrots banned cause I want to?
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014
Whoa, “uninformed”? MT @Nicole_Cameron: Wow. @SCOTUSblog what a way to wake up in 1950s. Giving healthcare to the uninformed, the prejudiced
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014
Or eating the cheap Kung Pao Chicken MT @NYCPainter1: Of all the bad decisions @SCOTUSblog made the last few years, #HobbyLobby is the worst
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014
Lost our copy, apologies. MT @opinali: @SCOTUSblog today you have f@cked up real hard. Go read the f@cking First Amendment again, OK?
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014
Seriously people, read MT @Devilsmirk: Does anyone actually read how @SCOTUSblog comes to their decisions? Read the actual ruling.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014
Come at us, bro MT @mazurslovedogs: @SCOTUSblog manages to screw up or endanger everyone’s life. Maybe someone needs to discuss impeachment!
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014
Needed a place to put it MT @TheResPublicaBK: Today is the day @SCOTUSblog allowed religion to be above the law. Congratulations
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014
We prefer them as our editor & manager. RT @Allout1 I guess @SCOTUSblog wants women barefoot, pregnant and cooking dinner.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014
Or when bloggers decide the law? MT @alyssaanton: @SCOTUSblog proves democracy cannot work when leaders are appointed instead of elected.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) July 1, 2014
Thurs. No, wait—Fri MT @Closetrighty: @SCOTUSblog can you at least tell me when your agents will confiscating my gf’s birth control.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) July 1, 2014
Really? Let’s let twitter decide. Ok? MT @The_Itch: @SCOTUSblog How do I become a justice? Pretty sure I’m smarter than 5 of you.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) July 1, 2014
#2: read a twitter bio RT @bradleytroth: @SCOTUSblog things a real person can do a corporation can’t: adopt a child.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) July 1, 2014
Affirmed: holy cows now protected MT @crashandcarry @SCOTUSblog, holy cow did you men mess up. Shame on u!
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) July 1, 2014
The passive aggressive way @SCOTUSblog is answering right now is horrible considering the position they just put women in. Not okay.
— Dumb of the Day (@WollyWollenberg) June 30, 2014
Drops mic. RT @sayyeslena: Have y’all seen what @SCOTUSblog is tweeting? #MyGovernmentIsBeingPassiveAggressive #Awkward
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014
You have no idea MT @ZwielichtFunkel: I’d have thought that @SCOTUSblog is a parody account. Is douchebaggery by government accounts normal?
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014
Beat heads on desks RT @USUfacts: @MattAHorton @SCOTUSblog pretty sure it’s their blog as run by their clerks. check your facts.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014
Sry MT @calph7: Hilarious that @SCOTUSblog is mocking lay persons’ opinions. They don’t care, they’re their own branch of gov’t!
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014
FTW RT @tory_dube @SCOTUSblog decisions upset so many people & all they are doing on twitter is mocking those people. That’s just disturbing
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) July 1, 2014
Now let’s watch you try MT @noahtron watching @SCOTUSblog spin trying to cover their asses after today’s ruling is unrepentant visible smarm
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) July 1, 2014
And… scene. Goodnight MT @seanmcdh: was the @SCOTUSblog account hijacked by an angry 14 year old male? wow! So much for ”…by the people.“
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) July 1, 2014
No -Ginsburg RT @notsalome shouldn’t @SCOTUSblog sign its tweets with the justice’s name who wrote the tweet?? #tcot
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) July 1, 2014
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: confusion, scotusblog, supreme court, trolling
Companies: hobby lobby, twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's more likely @SCOTUSBlog will now get sued for trademark infringement, since clearly there is a lot of confusion over who is behind.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Who is what's behind?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Calling all mathematicians
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Prime example
[ link to this | view in thread ]
On issues that effect more than just themselves.
Seriously,
THESE PEOPLE VOTE.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Is @TechdirtBlog still available?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Trademark infringement
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I'm pretty sure that if SCOTUS was liberal, you'd get more people on the conservative side.
Especially when they lost on Obamacare... Oh boy was that ever a cluster...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Because the issue itself is funny
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hmm...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
They can totally solve all of the worlds problems with an online petition, FB likes, or tweeting loud enough.
Perhaps that is the greatest trick that was ever pulled, we got them to sit at home and grump online rather than lift a finger and do anything in the real world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
> terrifying is that they think Twitter rage
> can change anything. They can totally solve
> all of the worlds problems with an online
> petition, FB likes, or tweeting loud enough.
Well, when you have the actual State Department responding to humanitarian crises and terror attacks with "hashtag diplomacy" instead of actual diplomacy, this is what you get.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Is it better to be an idiot and vote than to be an idiot and not vote?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
*THAT* is twitter-speak ? ? ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Idiocy doesn't draw party lanes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Shameful.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
A republican oftentimes either a poor-as-fuck trailer trash southerner, or a rich-as-fuck Corporate dictator.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
On November 7, 2016 SCOTUSblog could always just send a reminder that people can vote online by tweeting their choice for president to @YourOfficialPollingPlaceWeSwear.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course it's not a church, but I'm not sure why you think that matters. Heck, even a convent isn't a church.
Please note that the government did not contest that their beliefs were sincerely held. This is not a case of a corporation cynically claiming to hold beliefs for tactical reasons. I'm also not sure what you think the "responsibilities" of a religious organization are, but I don't think you'd change your opinion even if they held a church service every Sunday anyway.
Would you prefer a world where any for-profit corporation must only pursue maximum profits and ignore any and all moral beliefs?
What's shameful is forcing people to violate their religious beliefs because you think 20 types of contraceptives should be free and someone objected to 4 of them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Living under a rock...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This doesn't really make it clear that it's a press blog
[ link to this | view in thread ]