I once held Snopes as the be-all and end-all for documenting facts in a world of misinformation and outright lies. But, of late, with their push to become a subscription service, I've more closely scrutinized their research. So I am not surprised at your rebuttal: I've seen the change in their work, and it's move to more 'opinion' than pure fact. And I heartily agree with your assessment: the Roberts disbarment complaint must be adjudicated.
Same here. I used to donate to Snopes, but they have disappointed me more than once. This posting by Christopher shows how far they've fallen. Sloppy work.
I get how this might happen but ultimately what can be done? Is the bar complaint still on the table for consideration? This guy is a bigger problem in my opinion than the two obvious buffoons everyone complains about. Roberts is far more strategic and not above utter dishonesty if it will give him what he wants. I have zero respect for the man and would love to see major changes to the court as soon as possible. Term limits, additional members and a process that cannot be manipulated like has happened here. I’d also love to see a review of the decision in the 50’s about the role of the SC. Perhaps a constitutional convention, who knows. I just know that this court has gotten way out over its skis on many rulings and playing with shadow docket to assist them in ruling on cases where, by original design, their role was never intended at all. I am thoroughly pissed off that they keep overruling courts who are issuing rulings within our legal framework. Once we regain control and begin to rebuild the SC and Appellate Judges really need review. If Trump isn’t a legitimate president then none of his decisions hold water either including appointing warped Judges. Whoa! I guess I’m a bit irritated 🤯
Be careful about a Constitutional Convention!! 3/4 of the states are needed to approve amendments, and while blue states have more population, there are more states that vote red. The structures that advantage rural states advantage them here too.
Although I am a reasonably intelligent person, you often introduce points of view and ideas in your posts that are unfamiliar to me. These are delicious points to ponder; if not act upon! Thank you for always understanding that not everyone knows and understands the nuances of your ideas. I applaud your effort for clarity. Example: you explained “citations”; reference numbers that not every reader may know about.
Thank you for your recent participation in our focus group presentation on Soft Secession. Again, thanks for making every effort to make your posts understandable to a broad audience.
I generally assume good faith on the first pass for tactical reasons rather than out of the kindness of my heart. It helps when there's conflict if you can prove you gave them a chance without presumption of malice. Then escalation is a result of the other parties actions.
I try to assume good faith, until I can't stomach it anymore. Years ago I got banned from editing wikipedia, because I could no longer play the game of assuming good faith, especially when other editors were inside the clique,and reversing comments that endangered their ideology. There are a lot of gate keepers on wikipedia, they keep vigilance over protected articles with watch lists.
Two of those articles was on Reagan and Nixon and I posted documented, reliable secondary sources, of their treason and got reverted, I reverted the revert, and that was reverted if I reverted that revert then i would be guilty of a revert war and that is one of their taboos..
For those of us who aren’t attorneys, your perspective,experience,and knowledge are impressive. Much of what you disclose is beyond my understanding and it is usually a challenge for me to fully comprehend. An exception would be a piece I read yesterday which offered citizens the means to take action against violations we see by the executive,legislative and judicial branches. I thoroughly appreciated it and saved it for future reference. Thank you for your due diligence and approach to helping us discover ways to deal with our current authoritarian government. The persistent threats to our democracy,the Constitution,the Rule of Law, and established and accepted norms are overwhelming and dangerous.Thank you for your assistance and advocacy. You are appreciated! 🙏🏻
I am working more to explain things in digestible terms because part of my mission here is helpitto educate folks and arm them with tools to effectively respond to the historical moment we are all living through.
So the feedback on yesterday is very helpful and I'm going to keep working to develop my skills as a writer and communicator since that helps empower more folks.
Intense, deep, fabulously reasoned response to the bullshit that Snopes puts out, and they put out incredibly slanted responses that undermine anything that is not aligned with right-wing propaganda. I have read through it before. It's just like perplexity when he says there's nothing to support that allegation. And I'm reminded that it's researching sources that are owned by six billionaires and their corporations who are, in fact, the reason why there is no information. Anyway, thank you for this. I wish I could support you financially, but I need people to buy my artwork and then I can.
Meanwhile, I'll do the usual and like and restack.
Excellent piece, Mr. Armitage. One thing you may not have addressed is the fact that Roberts’s job requires him to disclose the fact that lawyer X at firm Y paid money to his wife for his or her job. That, of course, has never occurred, for the same reason that Roberts and Alito and Thomas and Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and Barrett don’t disclose Jack Shit. And they fail to do that with great regularity because they know that if they did, it wouldn’t require recusal, but rather impeachment.
The problem as I see it is that people (in this case you) spend so much time researching and uncovering facts that are critical to today's world. Snopes should take great care in balancing that research with prior publications. Their funding doesn't depend on government grants, does it? I don't believe it would have a reason to tilt one way or another. It's always been a respected source.
My personal take is that it's sloppy and they're probably like every other publication that pushes for maximum content creation to the detriment of factual rigor.
I once held Snopes as the be-all and end-all for documenting facts in a world of misinformation and outright lies. But, of late, with their push to become a subscription service, I've more closely scrutinized their research. So I am not surprised at your rebuttal: I've seen the change in their work, and it's move to more 'opinion' than pure fact. And I heartily agree with your assessment: the Roberts disbarment complaint must be adjudicated.
Same here. I used to donate to Snopes, but they have disappointed me more than once. This posting by Christopher shows how far they've fallen. Sloppy work.
It's so sad when a previously reliable company throws its own integrity under the bus for a few bucks.
Same here.
Lots of ads on their site. Not a good look for their work. Conflict of interest could well arise.
So sad that Snopes didn't hold themselves up to their own standards.
Thirty year member of the federal trial bar here and I concur 100% with your recusal analysis on Roberts. He should have recused.
Hear, Hear!
I get how this might happen but ultimately what can be done? Is the bar complaint still on the table for consideration? This guy is a bigger problem in my opinion than the two obvious buffoons everyone complains about. Roberts is far more strategic and not above utter dishonesty if it will give him what he wants. I have zero respect for the man and would love to see major changes to the court as soon as possible. Term limits, additional members and a process that cannot be manipulated like has happened here. I’d also love to see a review of the decision in the 50’s about the role of the SC. Perhaps a constitutional convention, who knows. I just know that this court has gotten way out over its skis on many rulings and playing with shadow docket to assist them in ruling on cases where, by original design, their role was never intended at all. I am thoroughly pissed off that they keep overruling courts who are issuing rulings within our legal framework. Once we regain control and begin to rebuild the SC and Appellate Judges really need review. If Trump isn’t a legitimate president then none of his decisions hold water either including appointing warped Judges. Whoa! I guess I’m a bit irritated 🤯
The bar complaints fine and progressing.
I put this piece out because Snopes hasn't corrected their article in a timely manner so it is now incorrect and misinforming the public.
Be careful about a Constitutional Convention!! 3/4 of the states are needed to approve amendments, and while blue states have more population, there are more states that vote red. The structures that advantage rural states advantage them here too.
Although I am a reasonably intelligent person, you often introduce points of view and ideas in your posts that are unfamiliar to me. These are delicious points to ponder; if not act upon! Thank you for always understanding that not everyone knows and understands the nuances of your ideas. I applaud your effort for clarity. Example: you explained “citations”; reference numbers that not every reader may know about.
Happy to hear the feedback, Betsy.
Also, points to ponder is a delightful phrase!.
Thank you for your recent participation in our focus group presentation on Soft Secession. Again, thanks for making every effort to make your posts understandable to a broad audience.
I thought this about snopes recently. It appeared slanted. Sickening!
Damned good writing, Mr. Armitage.
Appreciate it, very much.
Excellent fact-check on the Snopes article that also helped me better understand the Complaint and the underlying issues and law. Thank you!
Bless you for your generous good faith assumption. Alas I do not share it,not in the environment in which we find ourselves trying to exist.
I generally assume good faith on the first pass for tactical reasons rather than out of the kindness of my heart. It helps when there's conflict if you can prove you gave them a chance without presumption of malice. Then escalation is a result of the other parties actions.
I try to assume good faith, until I can't stomach it anymore. Years ago I got banned from editing wikipedia, because I could no longer play the game of assuming good faith, especially when other editors were inside the clique,and reversing comments that endangered their ideology. There are a lot of gate keepers on wikipedia, they keep vigilance over protected articles with watch lists.
Two of those articles was on Reagan and Nixon and I posted documented, reliable secondary sources, of their treason and got reverted, I reverted the revert, and that was reverted if I reverted that revert then i would be guilty of a revert war and that is one of their taboos..
For those of us who aren’t attorneys, your perspective,experience,and knowledge are impressive. Much of what you disclose is beyond my understanding and it is usually a challenge for me to fully comprehend. An exception would be a piece I read yesterday which offered citizens the means to take action against violations we see by the executive,legislative and judicial branches. I thoroughly appreciated it and saved it for future reference. Thank you for your due diligence and approach to helping us discover ways to deal with our current authoritarian government. The persistent threats to our democracy,the Constitution,the Rule of Law, and established and accepted norms are overwhelming and dangerous.Thank you for your assistance and advocacy. You are appreciated! 🙏🏻
Thank you, Debra!
I am working more to explain things in digestible terms because part of my mission here is helpitto educate folks and arm them with tools to effectively respond to the historical moment we are all living through.
So the feedback on yesterday is very helpful and I'm going to keep working to develop my skills as a writer and communicator since that helps empower more folks.
- Chris
Intense, deep, fabulously reasoned response to the bullshit that Snopes puts out, and they put out incredibly slanted responses that undermine anything that is not aligned with right-wing propaganda. I have read through it before. It's just like perplexity when he says there's nothing to support that allegation. And I'm reminded that it's researching sources that are owned by six billionaires and their corporations who are, in fact, the reason why there is no information. Anyway, thank you for this. I wish I could support you financially, but I need people to buy my artwork and then I can.
Meanwhile, I'll do the usual and like and restack.
Excellent piece, Mr. Armitage. One thing you may not have addressed is the fact that Roberts’s job requires him to disclose the fact that lawyer X at firm Y paid money to his wife for his or her job. That, of course, has never occurred, for the same reason that Roberts and Alito and Thomas and Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and Barrett don’t disclose Jack Shit. And they fail to do that with great regularity because they know that if they did, it wouldn’t require recusal, but rather impeachment.
I did in the original bar complaint article and in the actual complaint I submitted.
Cool. I need to look at that first article again, I guess. Thanks.
Snopes is becoming Politfact. Producing ratings that are based on political views first, then tailoring those views to the “facts”.
Signed, sealed and delivered! Nice retort. Bang—Roberts is done.
Informative and clearly stated. The references seal the facts.
Amazing document, clearly stated and with real firepower to sustain it. I hope Snopes publishes a correction.
The problem as I see it is that people (in this case you) spend so much time researching and uncovering facts that are critical to today's world. Snopes should take great care in balancing that research with prior publications. Their funding doesn't depend on government grants, does it? I don't believe it would have a reason to tilt one way or another. It's always been a respected source.
My personal take is that it's sloppy and they're probably like every other publication that pushes for maximum content creation to the detriment of factual rigor.