Quote:
Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas
The issue is still being litigated to some extent but the decision was not narrow by any stretch of the imagination.
At the beginning it just looked like the Washington Post was taking a hit for the team / editorializing their own wishes but they were not so thank you for pointing out my error.
However, that just made them look biased. Their fundamental failure in understanding the very basic principle of the ruling however makes them look woefully incompetent ; it is the usual argument of what is worse? Stupidity and ignorance or outright wrong and evil acts?
Both are a danger but the Washington Post just looked like they are clueless.
|
It wasn't just them, there was a large amount of reporting that suggested it was of limited scope including the
SCOUTUS blog which is a pretty well respected outlet for reporting on the court.,
ABC News and even the right-wing
National Review
You may have a different legal interpretation to them, some outlets do, but they weren't isolated in their view of this so I think it's unfair to accuse them of being woefully incompetent. They are clearly in the majority on their interpretation of the judgement.