Writers Stop Confusing Everybody and Use Simple Terms

Opinion | The Supreme Court’s Ultimate Psychological Manipulation - The New York Times (nytimes.com). Before diving in, take a look at this article from The New York Times. Now, can you tell me what it’s talking about? It took me some time to figure it out because everyone is throwing around the term "gaslighting" like it’s the latest trend.

The article talks about how some judges in the Supreme Court are making decisions that many people don't agree with, but then they act like those decisions are no big deal. This can make people feel confused and upset because the judges are pretending everything is fine when it's not.

While this is a good article, I think contributing writers in the NYT need to stop using confusing and in vogue it moment terminology and get straight to the point. So here are the points debunked.

Key Points in Article

Judges' Decisions:

Some judges made a decision that allows the president to break certain laws without getting in trouble. This decision surprised and worried many people.

Another decision was about making sure women could get medical help during emergencies, but a judge acted like the government was worrying too much about it.

A law was made to keep guns away from people who hurt their families, but some judges tried to change it.

Gaslighting:

Gaslighting means trying to make people doubt what they know is true. The article says some judges are doing this by pretending their decisions are not a big deal, even when they are.

Confusing Decisions:

The judges made a confusing rule about gun laws, saying that only old laws from a long time ago matter. This made it hard for other judges to know what to do with new gun laws.

Changing Stories:

Sometimes the judges change their stories or act differently, making people wonder what is true.

Judges Making Big Choices:

Think of judges as the ones who make rules in games. Sometimes, they make big decisions about important things, like if people can break rules and not get in trouble, or if someone can get help when they are very sick.

Pretending Nothing's Wrong:

Imagine if you did something that upset your friends, but then you said, "It's no big deal! Everyone is overreacting!" That might make your friends feel confused and upset. That's what some judges are doing.

Gaslighting:

If you know you saw a red ball, but someone keeps telling you it was blue and makes you doubt yourself, that's gaslighting. The judges are making people doubt what they know is true by acting like their decisions are not a problem.

Mixed-Up Rules:

The judges said that only really old rules from a long time ago matter for some things, like keeping toys away from kids who break them. But then they changed their minds and made it confusing for everyone else.

Acting Different:

If you keep changing the rules in a game, your friends won't know what's going on. That's what the judges are doing by acting differently and making new decisions that don't match the old ones.

So in summary, the NYT article is saying that some judges are making confusing decisions and pretending everything is fine when it's not. This makes people feel unsure about what’s true and what’s not, like when someone tries to make you doubt what you know.

How Supreme Court should behave and why is this happening?

How the Supreme Court Should Behave

Consistency:

The Supreme Court should make decisions that are consistent with the Constitution and past rulings. This helps ensure that the law is stable and predictable.

Transparency:

The Court should clearly explain its decisions and the reasoning behind them. This transparency helps people understand and trust the legal process.

Impartiality:

Judges should remain neutral and not be influenced by political or personal beliefs. Their decisions should be based solely on the law and the Constitution.

The End