The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Justice Scalia Did Not Read The New York Times; Justice Barrett Does
It is very useful to know where a Justice gets her news from.
Back in 2013, Justice Scalia gave a wide-ranging interview with New York Magazine. One of my favorite exchanges concerned which media Scalia consumes:
What's your media diet? Where do you get your news?
Well, we get newspapers in the morning."We" meaning the justices?
No! Maureen and I.Oh, you and your wife …
I usually skim them. We just get The Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times. We used to get the Washington Post, but it just … went too far for me. I couldn't handle it anymore.What tipped you over the edge?
It was the treatment of almost any conservative issue. It was slanted and often nasty. And, you know, why should I get upset every morning? I don't think I'm the only one. I think they lost subscriptions partly because they became so shrilly, shrilly liberal.So no New York Times, either?
No New York Times, no Post.
Justice Barrett apparently has different reading habits. During oral argument in United States v. Hemani, she pointed to a recent article in the New York Times concerning the harms from marijuana:
And so I guess my concern is let's say that I think Congress could make a determination, maybe, I don't know, I mean, there was just an article in the New York Times about the dangers of marijuana, and, you know, maybe that's true.
I did a quick search of the briefs in Hemani, and I couldn't find any articles from the Times cited on this point. The most recent piece from the NYT Editorial Board on February 9 (after amicus briefs were due) was titled, It's Time for America to Admit That It Has a Marijuana Problem.
I would wager that Justice Barrett consumes news from the New York Times on her own. Even if Justice Barrett has her social media mentions screened (I am skeptical), she voluntarily reads a publication that is intent on influencing her--and not in a good way. Remember what Jodi Kantor of the New York Times said: "I just want them to know we're watching them."
For what it's worth, I subscribe to the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, and several other outlets. I try to read each site daily so I know what everyone on all sides is saying.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
"Very useful" in what way?
All the news that's fit to print.
So, objective judge Scalia reads exclusively the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal and is not affected by those outlets in his decisions. Justice Barrett, on the other hand, reads the NYT, and... not anything else? Is influenced by the NYT and nothing else?
What on earth is the point of this post? It's relying on interviews more than a decade old, and nothing except the author's "wager" that justices (only the ones who read liberal media, mind) are being unduly influenced by reporting.
ACB has been infected by the Woke Mind Virus…the only cure is ivermectin and Theo Von podcasts!
My follow-up question is: what would Blackman *like* Supreme Court justices to read? Surely they should be reading things! So that they are informed and connected to the world around them, if nothing else.
It's just... this is one of the dumbest posts I've seen on this website. I don't have any clue what this guy is on about.
The problem is that Blackman has a fundamentally different idea of what the VC is about than the other bloggers here. The others have specific ideas they want to explore or cases or events to discuss. Blackman just thinks of this as his personal diary. A thought pops into his head and he just runs with it without bothering to consider whether it's worth saying.
Does anyone know how to effectively convey in written form contemptuous laughter? Until then, just know that is my reaction to this post.
13 years ago it would be newsworthy that Scalia limited himself to partisan media. It is not newsworthy today that Barrett reads the New York Times.