Mark Cuban Goes Full BlueAnon Accusing Elon Musk of Having Bot Army
Trump's Surgeon General Nominee Praised Facebook for Its Censorship During COVID
Biden Says He Left the Country Better Off Than 4 Years Ago (Which...
WH's 'Building a Better Future' Post With Pic of Kamala Harris Waving Goodbye...
U.N. Secretary-General Seems a Bit Concerned His 'Climate Finance' Is Drying Up
J.K. Rowling Continues to Be Enemy Number One to the Left With Her...
WHAT THE EUGENICS? Academic Writes That We Should Find Someone Better to Bear...
'Full of S**t'! Megyn Kelly Reenacting Phoniness From MSNBC's Joe & Mika Is...
Darrell Issa Asks Why State Dept. Is 'Catering to Federal Employees Personally Devastated'...
'Part of the Problem': Bill Maher DROPS Neil deGrasse Tyson Over Men in...
Report: Yes, Trump 'Plans to Fire the Entire Team' VERY Soon (Brace for...
Never Let The Truth Get In the Way of a Good Story: CBS...
Musk See TV: Elon Eyes Possible Purchase of Floundering MSNBC from Comcast
The End is Near: Axios Leader Screams Into Void as Darkness Engulfs Dying...
Hero Secret Service Agent Reflects on 61st Anniversary of JFK Assassination

The Vox Supreme Court Correspondent Ian Millhiser sees a decision in which he declares 'The good guys won' in unbiased fashion

Look, we all know that Ian Millhiser from Vox is about as far removed from being an objective journalist as Michael Moore is from the gluten-free soy products in a Whole Foods Market. But since they constantly try to pretend they are an unbiased source of even-handed explainers we will enjoy noting their rather blatant bias…and when they are shaking their pom-poms for social causes.

Advertisement

Today a landmark workplace discrimination case came down where SCOTUS determined that LGBT+ individuals can be covered in workplace discrimination cases.

Surely a number of people would have feelings about this, but Millhiser appeared to be especially…reactive, we’ll say.

We must say, the ALL CAPS was an especially subtle touch, Mr. Journalist.

We have to ask about this whole ”good guys/bad guys” aspect of his regarding the court. It does not sound like the words used by a professional journalist who is covering SCOTUS, but let’s face it — we all know of the rooting interests found in the press corps these days. It just requires us to point them out.

At least in his column that he wrote over a Vox Ian was more subdued. (We read it so you can be spared the suffering.) In it, Millhiser managed to be completely aware of the facts and yet at the same time unaware of the self-awareness he has exhibited about certain aspects of the case.

Advertisement

Gorsuch is a vocal proponent of “textualism,” the belief that the meaning of a law turns on its words alone, not on the intentions of the law’s drafters. And Bostock forced Gorsuch to decide between his own conservative politics and following the broad language of a landmark civil rights law. Gorsuch didn’t simply honor his textualist approach in Bostock; he wrote the majority opinion.

Huh, it’s almost as if he ruled in a fashion that people said he would during the confirmation process. The most amusing part here is that Millhiser has had such a long animosity for the Justice that his being blind to the possibility of a ruling based on the law was a foreign concept.

Advertisement

Just to underscore Ian’s failed prediction here, note the quote from him above where he is essentially praising Gorsuch over his Textualist views to arrive at today’s decision.

But this is the realm of The Millhiser. Gorsuch is always and irredeemably regarded as the bad guy, but suddenly today he is praiseworthy for taking the side of the Good Guys. This is the kind of knot in which you can find yourself entwined when you manage to drift from objective journalism.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement