Here's the link. It was Ruth Marcus. So many DC elite pundits just don't acknowledge how fucking corrupt, extreme and political these right wingers on SCOTUS are. They see them at cocktail parties!
They pissed off half of the country, and those who love us, but they won’t touch marriage equality. Ruth Marcus is stupid. No one should trust anything she says.
Oh the Ruth Marcus who bemoaned that “this seamy trial” in New York was going before the federal cases she preferred? She’s always wrong, because she’s always assuming the checks and balances or some rules of fair play are about to kick in. www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/202...
Christ almighty there are so many journalists more worthy of Marcus's position. Like it would be faster to go through those that shouldn't have her job instead of her.
I think the reference to DC punditry is unhelpful. Ruth Marcus (Yale, Harvard, living a comfortable life being wrong in the WaPo) tends to be wrong in the WaPo for the direct benefit of the alumni of said institution, or, in this case, SCOTUS, their fully owned subsidiary.
Why anybody would think marriage equality is safer than Roe was is beyond me. Did these people not notice that Roe predates the marriage decisions by several decades?
But also, once you actually publish a “the Supreme Court is corrupt” story, that’s the only story you can write. It precludes all the normal coverage
They’re unprepared to upend their professional status quo like that
I’m sure they behave politely and halfway normal at cocktail mixed-company parties. Most people do if they’re well-mannered— and that’s the problem. They’re falling for a lot of schmoozy bullshit and thinking “they aren’t so bad” because they don’t break out into hateful chants over hors d’oeuvres