Share this page!

Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
Twitter logo
23 Oct, 4 tweets, 2 min read
A former National Review fellow wrote an NYT article claiming there are a bunch of secret Trump voters in Atlanta. For evidence, she cited "an attorney"—who turns out to be the president of Atlanta's Young Republicans chapter.

NYT deletes that entire section with no correction.
More on this mess:
Those of you questioning the relevance of the author being a former National Review fellow are probably right. The NYT's handling of the error is the real story here, not the reporter's background. I did not mean to imply that she intended to conceal Evans' affiliations.
Update: Corrections. nytimes.com/2020/10/21/us/…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Mark Joseph Stern

Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @mjs_DC

Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
22 Oct
By a 5–3 vote, the Supreme Court BLOCKS a lower court order that had allowed Alabama counties to implement curbside voting. So curbside voting will remain banned.

Sotomayor dissents, joined by Kagan and Breyer. Ginsburg would’ve dissented, as well. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
Sotomayor’s dissent closes with the poignant story of Howard Porter, Jr., which is the kind of thing only Sotomayor would think to pluck out of the record and deploy in an opinion. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
Just to be clear, the district court merely *allowed* Alabama counties to offer curbside voting. The court didn’t require anybody to do anything. It’s remarkable that the five conservatives (soon to be joined by a sixth) would reach out and slap down such a modest accommodation.
Read 4 tweets
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
20 Oct
Ian is right—tonight’s order from the Supreme Court is terrifying. Four conservative justices supported a radical theory that would empower state legislatures to violate election laws and engage in voter suppression with impunity. Only Roberts balked.
supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…
Tonight four conservative Supreme Court justices indicated their support for a radical, anti-democratic theory that would stop state Supreme Courts from enforcing state election laws to protect the franchise. And Barrett could soon give them a fifth vote. slate.com/news-and-polit…
This was unthinkable just a few years ago. I expected the worst but I’m still stunned. The Supreme Court has veered so far to the right that four justices would deny state courts the power to enforce election laws in their own states. Profoundly disturbing.slate.com/news-and-polit…
Read 6 tweets
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
11 Oct
It's not just staggering, but well-documented.

Republicans accused Democrats of court-packing when Obama *tried to fill vacant seats* on the DC Circuit. They refused to let Obama fill tons of other vacancies for purely partisan reasons.

And they bragged about it on the record.
Yes, McConnell refused to confirm Obama's judicial nominees from 2015-2016. But Republicans started indefinitely blocking Obama's nominees with blue slips long before that. They kept seats open for years on end just to ensure that Obama wouldn't fill them.
So many of Trump's judges—including the most brazenly partisan hacks—are sitting in stolen seats. Amy Coney Barrett's seat was stolen from Myra Selby, a Black Obama nominee. And Republicans effectively *shrank the 5th Circuit* to stop Obama's nominees.
Read 4 tweets
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
7 Oct
The Democratic Party is failing to persuasively explain why the Senate shouldn't even consider Amy Coney Barrett, and it's failing to make a persuasive case against Barrett herself. Republicans are clearly winning this battle. Democrats are blowing it. morningconsult.com/2020/10/07/amy…
Two weeks ago, I was told that Senate Democrats would not discuss court expansion because they preferred to fight Barrett's confirmation first. But they're barely doing that. And now they're poised to blow the hearings. Democrats' approach to Barrett has been a complete disaster.
Here's the thing: The Democratic base is mad. They're scared of Barrett. They're still mourning RBG. They're furious about Garland. And they're outraged by McConnell's rank hypocrisy.

Senate Democrats have failed to channel this anger into anything productive. It's appalling.
Read 8 tweets
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
5 Oct
The Supreme Court turned away Kim Davis' case, but Thomas (joined by Alito) wrote a jaw-dropping rant taking direct aim at Obergefell and suggesting that SCOTUS must overturn the right to marriage equality in order to protect free exercise. supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…
Thomas and Alito give a full-throated defense of Kim Davis, saying she was persecuted for her "traditional Christian values."

"Davis may have been one of the first victims of this Court’s cavalier treatment of religion in its Obergefell decision, but she will not be the last."
"Since Obergefell, parties have continually attempted to label people of good will as bigots merely for refusing to alter their religious beliefs in the wake of prevailing orthodoxy." -Thomas

Two Supreme Court justices have essentially said that Kim Davis is a modern-day martyr.
Read 7 tweets
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
2 Oct
Oh no. SCOTUS just agreed to hear a case that the conservatives could use to end the Voting Rights Act as we know it. supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…
Background on the case SCOTUS just took up:

The 9th Circuit struck down two Arizona voting restrictions. It ruled that both laws had a disproportionate impact on racial minorities, and that one was motivated by racist intent, all in violation of the VRA.
slate.com/news-and-polit…
Republicans hope to use this case as a vehicle to shred the VRA's most potent remaining tool: The ban on voting laws with a disproportionate impact on racial minorities.

John Roberts has wanted to kill this section of the VRA since it was passed. slate.com/news-and-polit…
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get email notifications when new thread is out from this Author!

Check out other threads from this Author!

Read all threads by @mjs_DC