“One of my great criticisms of the legal reporting industry is that they write about opinions summarizing them, often badly, always inaccurately, incompletely and out of context and almost never with a link to the actual opinion.”
____
Don’t they though? On opinion days, I go to Scotusblog to read their announcement of the ruling and opinion of the Court, and then click on the link to read the actual opinion itself. When I later read the news article reporting on the decision, it seldom reflects the actual reasoning as to why the Court ruled as it did. That’s a disservice to the people. It’s very seldom that the Court’s ruling is not Constitutionally sound. When they aren’t, those rulings are usually overturned, although it may take decades to do so as in Roe v. Wade. It is my hope that the deference to Chevron will be the next “precedent” to go.
It's not just judicial rulings we have to research but often times activists will send out missives designed to trigger outrage responses that aren't supported by the actual text in new legislation.