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

And then, of course, some of those same (and different) angry people started to notice the mocking tweets from the blog. And rather than recognizing their own mistakes... they doubled down, screaming about how crazy it is that the Supreme Court would tweet that way to people, leading to yet another layer of hilarity:

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

Life in the Twitterverse can get a little wacky sometimes, it seems. Frankly, it seems that the Supreme Court should figure out a way to give SCOTUSblog a press pass just as an apology for having to deal with all of those angry tweets...

Filed Under: confusion, scotusblog, supreme court, trolling
Companies: hobby lobby, twitter

Best Reporters On The Supreme Court Forced To Grovel Before Competitors To Prove They're Worthy Of A Press Pass

from the ridiculousness-defined dept

Back in April, we wrote about the travesty of the very best reporters on everything Supreme Court related, SCOTUSblog, still not having a press pass to the Supreme Court. The issue is somewhat complicated, in part because of the seriously arcane credentialing process involved. Basically, the Supreme Court looks kindly on reporters who already are credentialed by the Senate. But the Senate credentialing process involves the "Standing Committee of Correspondents" who get to decide who else to let in. The committee, basically, are journalists who have already been let into the club deciding who else can join them. When you set up a guild that lets you exclude innovative and disruptive players, guess what happens?

While the Senate had allowed a SCOTUSblog reporter, Lyle Denniston, in the past, it revoked that credential and said that it wouldn't give him or SCOTUSblog a new credential. While they don't say why, the main issue seems to be that the blog's publisher is Tom Goldstein, a practicing lawyer who does, on occasion, practice before the Supreme Court. Yet, there's a clear separation between the reporters covering the various cases and Goldstein's legal work. In fact, SCOTUSblog will not cover cases Goldstein's firm is involved in. And no one seems to deny that the reporters who work for the blog do great work.

In an effort that seemed to only highlight the ridiculousness of the situation, the "Standing Committee of Correspondents" decided to hold "a hearing" about the issue, which seemed merely designed to make them look as pompous and out of touch as possible. Or, at the very least, to show what happens when petty people are put in a position of power over others. Goldstein notes that the "hearing" seemed to involve all of their (apparently jealous) competitors on the "Standing Committee" digging up any reasons they could think of to deny them a press pass:

But the Standing Committee seems committed – having previously granted us a credential – to reaffirm its decision revoking our pass.  In listening to our appeal, which the chair labeled a “hearing,” the Committee members carefully divided up materials that they could use in an effort to undermine our qualifications.  (My favorite by far is that, unbeknownst to us, the Gallery’s staff director came to our office to take pictures of our signage and doors.)  No member of the Committee even acknowledged the recognition by others that the blog is engaged in high-quality journalism.  The closest it came was the chair’s firm statement that the Committee had a duty not to bow to “public pressure.”  That seems to miss the point.

It appears to be nothing more than a guild process to exclude competitors.

The main point that critics of SCOTUSblog have, concerning Goldstein's day job, is that publications are supposed to be "editorially independent from any organization that is 'not principally a news organization.'" And, specifically, they are supposed to avoid giving press credentials to someone who may be lobbying Congress. But Goldstein quickly points out that the Committee appears to have no problems violating those rules for other publications that either are controlled by foreign governments and/or large companies:

• Several credentialed organizations are government agencies:  Xinhua News Agency, the official press agency of the People’s Republic of China; Saudi Press Agency, an organ of the Saudi Ministry of Information; Itar-Tass News Agency, the central information agency of Russia;  Akahata, the official paper of the Japanese Communist Party; and Notimex Mexican News Agency, which has an executive editor appointed by the President of Mexico and a governing board of representatives of five government agencies.
• Several credentialed organizations are affiliated with commercial businesses directly related to the subjects they cover:  Energy Daily has several credentialed reporters, and it is owned by a substantial provider of energy consulting services, IHS, Inc.; LRP Publications has credentialed reporters, and also puts on trade shows and conferences; MLEX has credentialed reporters, and provides clients with “Market Insight” and “Predictive Analysis of Regulatory Risk.”

Goldstein wonders how it could be that SCOTUSblog, which is widely respected for its reporting on the Court, somehow creates "a greater risk of entanglement of journalism and other activities than state-sponsored news organizations."

A NY Times article about this quotes someone noting that the whole setup is one of "the fox guarding the henhouse." Though, it's not even clear that's the right analogy. This seems more like petty tyrants using their power to exclude someone who often does their job better than they do. And the whole show trial aspect of forcing SCOTUSblog to attend a "hearing" where a giant stack of "evidence" is presented against them merely confirms the travesty of the whole situation. The members of the Standing Committee of Correspondents should be ashamed of themselves. Just admit the facts and grant SCOTUSblog a press pass.

Filed Under: accreditation, journalism, lyle denniston, press, press pass, scotusblog, senate, standing committee of correspondents, supreme court, tom goldstein

Travesty: Supreme Court (And Senate) Deny SCOTUSblog A Press Pass

from the shameful dept

So we just had a story about a court recognizing that, yes, blogs are a part of the media, and noted how ridiculous it was that this is still an issue in 2014. However, it appears that the Supreme Court is still living in a different century (okay, maybe not a huge surprise, since they still haven't figured out email). If you follow issues around litigation, it's likely that sooner or later you'll read SCOTUSblog, which is (deservedly) the go to source for anything related to anything having to do with Supreme Court cases. On mornings when decisions come out, it's always the first source I check, and I'm hardly alone among legal watchers.

And yet... the Supreme Court has denied SCOTUSblog's request for a press pass based on a stupidly convoluted system for which the Senate is partly to blame as well. According to SCOTUSblog:

SCOTUSblog is not now, and has never been, credentialed by the Supreme Court. The Court’s longstanding policy was to look to credentials issued by the Senate. We pursued a Senate credential for several years, modifying several policies of the blog to address concerns expressed by the Gallery. Last year, we finally succeeded – the Senate Press Gallery credentialed Lyle as a reporter for SCOTUSblog. We then presented that credential to the Supreme Court, thinking that the issue was resolved.

But the Court declined to recognize the credential, explaining that it would instead review its credentialing policy. The Court has not indicated when that review will conclude.

This is complicated further by the fact that the Senate Press Gallery has now rejected SCOTUSblog's request for a press pass, and also told the blog it will not renew Lyle's press pass -- thereby cutting off the blog to both the Senate and the Court. SCOTUSblog's Tom Goldstein does note that the Supreme Court itself has actually tried to accommodate the blog's requests for public seats, despite not agreeing to give it a press pass. The situation is clearly ridiculous:

All that said, the Senate Press Gallery’s decision to deny us a credential is important to us. We wanted the credential in substantial part because we cover Supreme Court-related matters in the Senate. Most significantly, we do gavel-to-gavel, liveblog coverage of Supreme Court nominations. We also expect to cover hearings related to the Court’s budget. So those efforts are now more difficult.

So we plan to appeal the Senate Gallery’s credentialing decision. We do not have a written list of the reasons for the denial, which makes the process more difficult. Our impression is also that the appeal may go to the same group that denied the application in the first place. If the appeal is denied, then we expect to litigate the issue. We’re now coordinating all those efforts with other groups that kindly have offered to support us.

All in all, the refusal by the Court and the Senate to credential us have always seemed strange. No one seems to doubt that we are a journalistic entity and that we serve a public function. Winning the Peabody and other awards would seem to confirm that. And the Court for years has functionally recognized us, because obviously the overwhelming majority of Lyle’s work is for us. We do not want any kind of special treatment. Credentialing the blog doesn’t give us any special power or recognition; it just makes our jobs incrementally easier. All in all, it doesn’t seem to make sense to impose burdens on us that are greater than those that apply to others who fundamentally do the same thing.

I don't think "strange" is the right word. Shameful works better. Stupid would apply as well.

Filed Under: journalism, journalists, press pass, scotusblog, senate, supreme court