The article discusses how conservative legal commentators are cautious when appearing on media platforms due to inherent bias towards caution among their ranks. This is contrasted with liberal legal analysts, who often make egregiously wrong and repeatedly loud claims without any consequences. The author argues that this imbalance has led to a pernicious impact on consumers of blue bubble media as they continue to fall for absurd conspiracy theories promoted by left-wing politicians like Senator Sheldon Whitehouse or even Senators Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin, who are currently the Senate Majority Leader and Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee respectively.
The author highlights that serious legal scholars on both sides tend to avoid making quick assessments due to a desire for caution and nuance rather than participating in cable news debates or posting their opinions online. Younger lawyers also prefer staying low-key, avoiding getting involved in high-profile fray, and focusing on doing good work instead of taking partisan positions that could negatively impact their future careers.
The author notes that prudence among conservative legal analysts combined with the hunt for ratings by blue bubble audiences has led to surprises when decisions from the Supreme Court go against expectations. For instance, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision returning abortion law decisions back to state legislatures was a center-right position since Roe v Wade came down in 1973. Similarly, while Donald Trump lost the former case v. Anderson related to ballots issue would also surprise them even though it is very obvious based on past court cases and rulings concerning presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for acts taken during their tenure as president.
The author argues that legal commentators should present both sides of every argument, be prepared to discuss the pros and cons of each issue, avoid brainwashing audiences, and not participate in misleading propaganda disseminated by blue bubble media platforms. The feigned surprise shown by analysts on the left when confronting decisions they don’t like is predictable due to junk analysis fed by their favorite “legal experts” regularly making false claims about issues related to abortion rights disputes, EPA rule-making or property rights infringements etcetera.
The author concludes that while legal analysts on both sides are protected under the First Amendment, it is essential for forewarned individuals to remain vigilant against erroneous hot takes from the left as these lead to shock and outrage when decisions go contrary to their expectations. The article highlights Hugh Hewitt’s role in this regard since he hosts “The Hugh Hewitt show,” heard weekday mornings on over 400 affiliates nationwide, where he discusses constitutional law, national security, American politics, the Cleveland Browns and Guardians with his guests from both political parties.
Leave a Reply