Dang, fake news is getting pretty brazen in their lies.
Have you read the decision? Have you read the comments on this thread? Before SHOUTING, you might want to take a little time to understand what a narrow decision by the Supreme Court means. It has nothing to do with the number of Justices that agree with the decision. The statement is quite true, the decision was 7-2 and the opinion was decidedly narrow.
Have you read the decision? Have you read the comments on this thread? Before SHOUTING, you might want to take a little time to understand what a narrow decision by the Supreme Court means. It has nothing to do with the number of Justices that agree with the decision. The statement is quite true, the decision was 7-2 and the opinion was decidedly narrow.
-
Yes... and as I said elsewhere, that doesn’t excuse the media. The majority of people are going to see the “narrow victory” headline and assume that the voting was narrow. The media is purposely misleading people by using that word.
>>The statement is quite true, the decision was 7-2 and the opinion was decidedly narrow.<<
A headline is meant to be taken prima facie. Perhaps if the “journalists” of today were to learn English they would know the obvious interpretation of the headline is that the decision was on a narrow vote (denotative) and not a narrow legal basis (connotative).
My reaction is not sui genre — if you read the comments in the the article quite a few others came to the same conclusion as I.
Unlike you, many of us do not have time to read a 56 page ruling. I am willing to bet you do not have the legal background to actually understand it and I am certain most people who read it do not.
You may retract your wagging finger in support of lazy journalism, lest it get bitten off.