As oft advocated, the Intramuralist believes in an intentional, careful, news source selection. It\u2019s not that we shouldn\u2019t be subject to bias; however, we can\u2019t claim to possess an accurate, objective perspective if we rely on a singular side, voice or source.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Hence, today\u2019s post was originally set to share a short sampling of my recent reading \u2014 written by respectful authors who made me think\u2026 for example\u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n
From Richard Wolf in USA TODAY,<\/em> in an editorial entitled \u201cDonald Trump stood no chance in front of a conservative Supreme Court. Here’s why\u201d:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe Supreme Court’s refusal to help Donald Trump change the result of the 2020 election should come as no surprise for the very reason the president hoped to win the case: The court is conservative\u2026 \u2018The hallmark of conservative jurisprudence is respect for established law. No one should be surprised that the justices, like the Trump-appointed lower court judges in all these election cases, followed the law.\u2019\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n From Aaron Tang, professor of law at UC Davis and a former law clerk to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in the Los Angeles Times,<\/em> in an editorial entitled \u201cThe new Supreme Court is sending surprisingly centrist signals\u201d:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cHow far will the Supreme Court\u2019s new conservative supermajority go? \u2026Surprisingly, comments in three major oral arguments held since Justice Amy Coney Barrett took her seat offer significant clues. Across these cases, several conservative justices asked questions revealing a desire to find compromises that, to some degree, could satisfy both sides of the partisan divide\u2026\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n From Jonathan Chait in NY Magazine,<\/em> in an editorial entitled \u201cHow Michael Anton\u2019s \u2018Flight 93 Election\u2019 Essay Defined the Trump Era\u201d:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThat is the power of Anton\u2019s chosen analogy, which urges his audience to overlook all of Trump\u2019s complete unfitness to handle the job (\u2018You\u2014or the leader of your party\u2014may make it into the cockpit and not know how to fly or land the plane,\u2019 he concedes) on the grounds that the alternative means imminent national death\u2026\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n From David French in The French Press,<\/em> in an editorial entitled \u201cThe Case Against Xavier Becerra\u201d:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIf I had to sum up my objection to Becerra in a single sentence, it would be this: He\u2019s a punitive progressive culture warrior. I realize that Biden is pro-choice and will pick a pro-choice HHS secretary. But the man he picked has a pattern and practice of pushing progressive cultural causes beyond the constitutional red line\u2026\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n And then I found The Thread.<\/em> Follow me here.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With 13 federal prisoners scheduled to be executed by the end of Pres. Trump\u2019s term, debate on the death penalty has increased. I knew, therefore, I needed to find a source that\u2019s better\u2026 better<\/em> than CNN, FOX, or pretty much the Daily anything. There are legitimate arguments for and against its use. I don\u2019t want anyone\u2019s bias to be the basis for my thinking. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Directed by AllSides, I found an article on The Thread<\/em> entitled \u201cShould We Resume Capital Punishment Federally?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n And fascinatingly, they didn\u2019t try to talk me into anything. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n First, they state the context. They then ask, \u201cWhy does this question matter?\u201d Next is a factual account of the differences between state and federal application. Trends were concisely shared. And then they actually wrote the words that the CNN\u2019s, FOX\u2019s, etal.\u2019s rarely seem to utter: \u201cWhat do you think?\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n To quote Jim Carey in the iconic \u201cBruce Almighty,\u201d \u201cB-E-A-Utiful!!\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The Thread<\/em> then took a respectful look at both sides.<\/p>\n\n\n\n