Fake News Take-Down

By now faithful readers you know how much I LOOOOOOVE taking down a fake news story. Honestly it isn’t that hard if you have half a brain in your head, which most of the people writing this (fake) shit don’t.

Our most recent bit of biased bullshit comes from our friends at Reuters and was co-written by Andrew Chung and Lawrence Hurley (hereinafter referred to as “the meatballs”). It amuses me that the meatballs would attach their name to this steaming pile of dung, but I’m glad they did so we can call them out on it. Take a moment and skim through if you would please:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/analysis-u-liberals-see-dwindling-100436706.html

Now most of you have advanced degrees, or at least certificates of completion, from the Chance school of how to detect fake news. This one is a textbook case.

Let’s start with their opening paragraph: “During the bitter legal battles over the 2020 presidential election, conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices signaled an embrace of a once-marginal legal doctrine that largely gives state legislatures power to set election rules.”

Right off the bat we know we got a smelly read coming. I ran this article by our good friend and Biscuit Blog Constitution expert John Hill, Professor at the IU School of Law. His response to this opening paragraph perfectly phrased how I felt about it:

THE “Independent State legislature doctrine,” is that what they’re calling it?  It’s called Article I, section 4 of the Constitution: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.”

Ah yes – that pesky document (trying to) prevent liberals from ruining our country. So the meatballs have taken a law from the constitution in the FIRST PARAGRAPH and rephrased it as “a once-marginal legal doctrine.”

Our meatballs continue to pull straight from the Democrat playbook of fake news by using words that sound really bad, but then of course fail to give any examples of what the hell they are talking about.

Restrictions. Curbs. Dangerous. Or my favorite: Ticking Time Bomb. So what do they say, again, let’s quote them to make sure:

“It would give the legislatures the authority to pass any voting rules they want without meaningful oversight, particularly under the state constitution,” said Josh Douglas, a voting rights expert at the University of Kentucky Rosenberg College of Law. This can undermine voting rights by letting legislators craft rules that help them win re-election,” he added. The only ticking time bomb is that dude’s students who should immediately be leaving his class before they spend another dollar.

Except … it wouldn’t do any of those things. First, you’ve given us zero context by not defining any of your “accusations” in that we don’t know what “Curbs and Restrictions” you are referring to. Is it Voter ID? Is it the hours that polls are open? He says “by letting legislators craft rules that help them win.” You know, pretty much what Democrats did using Covid as a cover in 2020. But in the real post-pandemic world, the courts would not allow such obvious tactics. And let’s face it, one party or the other could change two words of the existing rules and the other party would sue them over it.

They leave it intentionally vague because they want your imagination to run wild. Would legislators given “free rein” to make rules be able to get away with saying for example: “New rule – if you aren’t white you can’t vote?” We know that there are protections in the law in place that would prevent that. But they try to use our own words against us by citing what they want you to believe is the “vagueness” of the constitution. We are smarter than that, but nice try.

Again John Hill summed it up perfectly as I discussed this article with him:

“This is hilarious! So you make up a term for something which has been the absolute foundation of our constitutional system, treat it like it’s something new and dangerous and then you treat the exceptions that have been created by constitutional amendment (like the 24th amendment which outlaws poll taxes) as if they are the rule and the rule is the exception.”

And you know we are (mostly) fair here, and at least the two meatballs grudgingly point out the truth – even if they slide it casually in at the end of the article. Another common fake news tactic. Later when they defend their steaming pile of dung they can say, “Well, you see we did mention that maybe all the shit we said in the 17 paragraphs above may not be totally accurate.” Again, we quote them:

“Michael Morley, a professor at Florida State University College of Law, who earlier this year published an article in support of the doctrine (“the doctrine” – shut the hell up you morons), said it is a misconception that it would let legislatures “run amok.” ‘Even without limits under state law, they would still be constrained by protections enshrined in the U.S. Constitution,’ he said.”

That’s about the only correct thing in the entire article, and we all know it.