The Supreme Court handed down several major rulings yesterday and, as is the case whenever the court decides to weigh in on a social issue, a lot of people got really mad. While watching people get angry on social media is always good fun on its own, this time, there was an added level of entertainment as people tweeted their dissatisfaction at SCOTUSblog’s twitter account, thinking that it was the actual Supreme Court.

SCOTUSblog, a website dedicated to tracking all things related to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), is not, in fact, operated by or in any way affiliated with the actual Supreme Court. But that doesn’t stop the flood of angry Twitter mentions that it receives at the end of each court term. In fact, its Twitter bio features a nice disclaimer, “A private blog. NOT THE JUSTICES OR THE COURT.” Thankfully, its Twitter account sets aside some time on each of these special nights to respond to many of the mistaken Twitter users.

On Monday afternoon, it started off with a warning to its current followers (who are presumably aware that it is not the actual Supreme Court) as well as some satire to set the scene:

You have one minute to unfollow us before we fill your Twitter feed.

— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 27, 2016

#BREAKING: facing constitutional crisis, in an unprecedented move, a blog was named to the empty ninth seat on the Supreme Court.

— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 27, 2016

And then it began. Here’s a collection of some of the best responses from yesterday:

We don’t rule “against the Constitution.” We twist it however we want. MT @pswise1 @SCOTUSblog Is RACIST &Again Rules Against Constitution

— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 27, 2016

So funny bc we’re just flipping coins. Math says we’ll eventually get one right MT @somhrd50 @SCOTUSblog always on the wrong side of history

— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 27, 2016

No! Expose who killed Vince Foster, indict Clinton, THEN impeach him. MT @hendog127@SCOTUSblog -Your first OBLIGATION IS TO IMPEACH OBAMA

— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 27, 2016

Here’s someone calling SCOTUSblog dumb (while at the same time confusing SCOTUSblog for the actual Supreme Court):

What makes you look dumbest, Bets’? MT @BetsyKerr Nothing makes @SCOTUSblog look dumber than a judge dissenting w/irrelevant opinion.

— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 27, 2016

I’ll let you unpack this one:

Keep it? Most men will prolly oblige. #nadaforzada MT @zadabee @SCOTUSblog Stop killing sperm! Man controls the sperm: KEEP IT~

— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 27, 2016

Here’s a nice reference to SCOTUSblog’s Twitter bio, which pretty clearly states that it is not affiliated with the actual court. But hey, who takes the time to read Twitter bios before angry tweeting?

Twitter descriptions are good reads too MT @carryabigstaff @SCOTUSblog If you read the Constitution, you know there is no right to privacy.

— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 27, 2016

Not all of the tweets were angry–some were happy with the court’s decision to strike down provisions in Texas’s HB 2, a law that placed what the court deemed to be undue restrictions on abortion providers.

Honestly, we were 5-3 on selling you to @zombieblog. MT @slclaridge Thanks @SCOTUSblog for continuing to let ME have control over MY body.

— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 27, 2016

To cap it off, SCOTUSblog ended up trolling unknowing Twitter users so well that Twitter actually suspended its account thinking that it was hacked. The blog posted an update explaining what happened and after a couple of hours, everything was back to normal: it returned to tweeting serious court news. Apparently the annual “running of the trolls” worked too well this time around.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post No Twitter Users, SCOTUSblog is not the Supreme Court appeared first on Law Street.

SCOTUSBlog made headlines yesterday when they publicized that the press pass for their Supreme Court reporter, Lyle Denniston, was not being renewed by the Senate Press Gallery. The outlet announced this news in a letter to their readers both on their website and via an email blast to followers. As the Supreme Court usually defers to the passes granted by the Senate Press Gallery, this means that SCOTUSBlog’s ability to cover the Court will be limited as well.

The entire thing seems incredibly confusing, so here is a quick, simple breakdown:

• The Supreme Court does not issue its own credentials. Instead, it usually defers to credentials issued by other branches, such as Congress, or the White House.
• A Senate Press Pass is important to a publication like SCOTUSBlog because it allows them to sit in on nominations, and other important Supreme Court related decisions, such as budgeting.
• After years of trying, SCOTUSBlog received a Senate Press Pass last year.
• The Supreme Court still denied them credentials, stating that they were reviewing their policies.
• The Senate Press Gallery has now also revoked that pass from SCOTUSBlog.
• Credentials are approved for the Press Gallery by the Standing Committee of Correspondents, currently composed of Siobhan Hughes, Chairwoman, Wall Street Journal; Peter Urban, Secretary, Stephens Media Group; Colby Itkowitz, Washington Post; Kate Hunter, Bloomberg; and Emily Ethridge, CQ/Roll Call.
• In the meantime, SCOTUSBlog does have one reporter is who accredited through another news affiliation, and will continue to cover the Court through public seats.
• SCOTUSBlog has said that they will appeal the rejection, and “litigate the issue” if necessary.

All in all, the entire issues seems surprising and incredibly odd, considering that the outlet has, in fact, won numerous awards for their coverage of the Supreme Court. 

SCOTUSBlog has had a history of struggling with the credentials process for a varied hodgepodge of strange reasons. According to Joe Keenan, who headed up the Senate Press Gallery in 2012, SCOTUSBlog  “failed to show that they were separate from the law firm,” that the founders, Tom Goldstein and Amy Howe, practice at and were rejected that year. 

SCOTUSBlog tweaked their processes and policies to become eligible for that press pass that is now not being renewed.

As of press time the Senate Press Gallery staff are not commenting, and neither SCOTUSBlog nor the Court has yet responded to my request for comment.

As of yet, no one can do more than speculate as to why the credentials will not be renewed by the Senate Press Gallery, but a quick read of the policies seems to indicate that the requirements for credentials are outdated, at best. The Senate Press Gallery’s credentials page states that credentials are available, “‘to bone fide correspondents of repute in their profession’ who are full-time, paid correspondents of recognized news organizations.” The policies go on to state how the reporter must be part of a company whose principal business is the dissemination of news and cannot be involved in another special interest.

There’s nothing in these policies that indicate why SCOTUSBlog would not qualify for the press pass, unless those policies were being interpreted from an antiquated point of a view. I’m just speculating here of course, but my point is that unlike these policies seem to require, news and journalism aren’t cut and dry the way they used to be. A blogger can provide newsworthy content alongside a full-time job. A journalist can viably work for free while making money through other sources. In this Internet age of free information and ready dissemination, our identities are not mutually exclusive. Here at Law Street, that rings true for so many of us — I am both a writer and a student, and my form of writing does not take the traditional format that it could have before the Internet. If I’m right, the press credentials process needs to be changed to reflect the evolution of our journalistic system.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Rogers Cadenhead via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SCOTUSBlog Press Pass Not Renewed: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.