Justices are immune from pressure

Justices are immune from pressure

PE Bias Grade : F

By: Allen Nitschelm on February 29, 2020 | Article Review

This is a review of the following Boston Globe Article:
Article Title Trump blasts 2 on high court
Date 02/26/2020
Article Link Boston Globe ( Page A2 )
Syndicated From New York Times
Journalist Peter Baker
Article Summary

Boston Globe/NYT criticizes Trump for responding to Supreme Court justices.

Share This Story

The Boston Globe reports on a back-and-forth dust up between Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor and President Trump. It is a biased report because it gives no weight to why the Supreme Court majority is accepting all these emergency cases which was the subject of Sotomayor’s criticism in her recent dissent. She seemed to claim that the Conservative justices are favoring Trump unfairly because they are agreeing to take all these “emergency” cases for no good reason.

Supreme Court justices are immune from political pressure, unless they choose otherwise. Likewise, they determine their own “conflicts of interest” and whether to recuse themselves or not. So Trump’s tweets about Justices Ginsberg and Sotomayor are not pressuring anyone on the bench whatsoever. Most newspaper readers are probably not totally aware of this, so this looks like another example of Trump “bullying” when it is not.

I recall that the Supreme Court recently ruled that these district of appeals court judges who issue “nationwide” orders are abusing their authority. Yet these nationwide “stays” continue. So long as they do, the Trump administration’s only legal recourse is to have an emergency appeal heard by the Supreme Court. Otherwise, if one takes the normal route, the stays would have their desired political effect: federal government paralysis on anything the Left disagrees with and can find a single judge to back them up. This would be unacceptable.

By not explaining how these nationwide stays have become common is the first mistake in this article, and not making it clear that these stays have been criticized by the Court is the second. These are central facts which puts the Trump administration’s appeals into context, and it is why Sotomayor is wrong in her opinion. She is obviously frustrated that local Liberal judges are not going to be allowed to circumvent the federal government’s performance of its basic functions which President Trump was elected to implement. Like her Democratic colleagues in Congress, Sotomayor is becoming overtly partisan.

There are many more emergency reviews being requested by the Trump administration, that is true. But there are also many more nationwide “stays” being issued, also true. They are linked together.

Trump also responds to Justice Ginsburg’s comments from a few years ago in which she expressed political support for Trump’s opponent. This is outside what Supreme Court justices normally do, but she is free to speak her mind and Trump is free to speak his. That he suggests she recuse herself for bias is a reasonable reaction by Trump to her outspokenness. But again, that decision is totally Ginsburg’s (for which she has apologized, but not recused herself thereafter).

What is really happening here is President Trump is fighting back, and the Left is surprised and shocked. Presidents usually act “presidential” and stay above the fray. Not so Trump. He is getting right into it and he has a First Amendment right to do so. And this is proving to be very effective because he is making changes that are opposed by the Democrats and the “establishment.” And it is exactly what he was elected to do, and will be doing for the next five years.

This article gets a poor bias grade not just for its blatant omissions, but for how it puts Trump as the instigator in its headline. Trump is reacting to attacks by two Supreme Court justices. He is responding, not picking the fight. It then implies that Trump isn’t following his own Attorney General’s advice, as if that is relevant.


Allen Nitschelm is publisher of PublicEditorMA.com. He critiques the Boston Globe, mostly focusing on the bias in their news reporting. News articles are graded for bias, and the website has a listing of the average bias ratings for all reporters reviewed. See our website for more information and the four categories of articles we publish.

NOTE: We have been very active on our Facebook page for Public Editor Press. The page is getting lots of hits and comments, which have been very helpful. I urge readers to go there if you wish to participate or read reactions from others. You will need to “login” to Facebook to post your own comments but you can probably read them without a Facebook account. Here is the direct link to this article’s Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/390560688135747/posts/791511621373983

To reach our Facebook site in general: https://www.facebook.com/publiceditorpress/


Author Rating

Rating: 1.0/10.


There are no user ratings at the moment.

Subscriber Ratings & Comments

Please be sure you are logged in to Rate Boston Globe Articles or Post Comments.

Here is the article you are rating for journalistic bias: Trump blasts 2 on high court

Rating scale in brief: 10 = A (No Bias) | 1 = F (Extreme Bias). For more details, please read Tips & Instructions below.

Please wait...

*Requires minimim of 5 Ratings to be displayed

Leave A Comment

Grading articles for bias is subjective. We hope that with widespread participation, we can give the reporters and editors at the Boston Globe valuable feedback on their professional work. Here are our suggestions for grading news articles for bias. (We do not rate editorial opinion columns for bias. But we do analyze the Boston Globe for overall editorial balance.)

Consider whether the article is completely free of bias (a grade of 10 or A), has been mostly free of bias (8 or 9, A- or B+), has been biased but not terribly or where the bias did not hurt the integrity of the underlying information (7 or 6, B or B-).

If the article was fairly biased overall, but subtle; or where the bias was particularly prominent but isolated to a single section, give the article a 5 or 4 (C+ or C). If the article was very biased but perhaps not intentionally so, perhaps a C- (3) would be deserved.

If the article was extremely prejudiced with major misstatements of fact, intentionally misleading, or ignored well known facts to advance a false narrative, give the article a D or F (2 or 1).

Reviewers must subscribe to Public Editor and agree to our terms of service to participate. Subscriptions are currently free. We recommend that all readers subscribe to the Boston Globe or the newspaper of their choice to support journalism, and to send the Boston Globe your feedback directly. Thank you for participating in Public Editor’s bias rating project!

Leave A Comment


Rating: 1.0/10.