Digest

This episode of "On the Media" delves into the concerning trend of unreliable information being used in amicus briefs submitted to the Supreme Court. The discussion begins with the recent Supreme Court decision lifting the ban on bump stocks, which was heavily influenced by an amicus brief written by a gun rights group. The brief contained factual errors and misleading information, which were then incorporated into Justice Clarence Thomas's majority opinion. The episode then explores the broader phenomenon of right-wing donors funding interest groups that supply the court with unreliable information, citing examples like the West Virginia v. EPA case. The podcast also examines the role of amicus briefs in shaping legal arguments and the potential for confirmation bias among justices. The episode concludes with a discussion of potential solutions to address the issue, including greater transparency about funding sources, earlier submission deadlines for briefs, and stricter rules governing the use of expert testimony in amicus briefs.

Outlines

00:00:00

Biden's Mental Fitness Questioned

This Chapter discusses a Wall Street Journal report questioning President Joe Biden's mental fitness, highlighting the media's focus on Biden's age and potential impact on the upcoming election. It also mentions Sinclair Broadcasting Group's practice of requiring local news anchors to read scripts promoting stories about Biden's mental fitness, often originating from Republican National Committee tweets.

00:06:51

Sinclair Broadcasting's Influence on Local News

This Chapter delves into the influence of Sinclair Broadcasting Group on local news stations across the country. It reveals how Sinclair's directives shape the content of local news, often promoting narratives that align with conservative viewpoints. The chapter highlights the lack of transparency and the forced reading of scripts from Sinclair HQ, raising concerns about the integrity of local news.

00:17:57

Supreme Court Decisions and Factual Errors

This Chapter examines the recent Supreme Court decisions and the presence of factual errors in some of the opinions. It discusses instances where justices have cited misleading information or misinterpreted research, highlighting the potential consequences of these inaccuracies. The chapter focuses on the Garland v. Cargill case, which involved the ban on bump stocks, and the factual errors made by Justice Clarence Thomas in his majority opinion.

00:36:17

Amicus Briefs and the Spread of False Facts

This Chapter explores the role of amicus briefs in influencing Supreme Court decisions and the potential for false facts to be incorporated into legal arguments. It discusses the history of amicus briefs and how they have evolved into advocacy tools, particularly in the digital age. The chapter highlights the lack of fact-checking and the potential for confirmation bias in the use of amicus briefs.

Keywords

Q&A

• How do unreliable amicus briefs make their way into Supreme Court decisions?

  Amicus briefs are often filled with information that is not vetted, and justices may not be aware of the funding sources or potential biases of the groups submitting them. This can lead to justices citing unreliable information in their opinions, which can then influence the outcome of the case.

• What are some potential solutions to address the issue of unreliable information in amicus briefs?

  Potential solutions include greater transparency about funding sources, earlier submission deadlines for briefs, and stricter rules governing the use of expert testimony in amicus briefs. These changes would help to ensure that justices have more time to vet the information in briefs and that they are aware of any potential biases.

• What are the consequences of factual errors in Supreme Court decisions?

  Factual errors in Supreme Court decisions can have far-reaching consequences, as they can influence the interpretation of laws and the development of legal precedent. These errors can also undermine public trust in the court and erode the legitimacy of its decisions.

• What is the role of Sinclair Broadcasting Group in shaping local news coverage?

  Sinclair Broadcasting Group owns and operates a large number of local television stations across the United States. The company has been criticized for its conservative political leanings and its practice of requiring its stations to air segments promoting certain narratives, often at the expense of local news coverage. This raises concerns about the integrity of local news and the potential for Sinclair to influence public opinion.

• What is the significance of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn the ban on bump stocks?

  The Supreme Court's decision to overturn the ban on bump stocks is significant because it allows for the widespread availability of devices that can make semi-automatic rifles fire more quickly, essentially mimicking the rate of fire of a fully automatic weapon. This decision has been criticized by gun control advocates, who argue that it will make it easier for mass shooters to obtain weapons that can inflict significant damage.

• What is confirmation bias and how does it affect Supreme Court decisions?

  Confirmation bias is the tendency to favor information that confirms pre-existing beliefs or hypotheses, while ignoring or downplaying information that contradicts them. Confirmation bias can affect Supreme Court decisions by leading justices to give more weight to information that supports their own views, even if that information is unreliable or inaccurate.

• What are the stakes involved in addressing the issue of unreliable information in amicus briefs?

  The stakes are very high because the law relies on reason and evidence to support its decisions. If the reasons are tainted by unreliable information, then the legitimacy of the law and the judicial system is undermined. This can have a significant impact on public trust in the legal system and the ability of the government to function effectively.

Show Notes