SCOTUSblog's Best Trolling Of People Who Think Its Twitter Account Is The Supreme Court Itself
from the the-failures-of-autocomplete dept
We’ve written a few times about SCOTUSblog and the trouble it’s been having getting a press pass for the Supreme Court due mainly to institutional jealousy from reporters at more mainstream publications — who rarely do nearly as good a job covering the Supreme Court. However, for years, SCOTUSblog has faced a different issue: the fact that many people on Twitter quickly assume that the @SCOTUSblog account on Twitter is actually the Supreme Court itself, rather than a private news organization that covers the Supreme Court.
That can create some ridiculous situations, especially when lots of people have a rather passionate opinion about a particular Supreme Court ruling and (of course) rush to Twitter to vent their frustrations (or joy). Assuming you haven’t been living under a rock, you may have heard about the Supreme Court’s ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. That ruling hits on a whole variety of hot button issues likely to bring out very strong opinions: religion, health care, health insurance, women’s rights, free speech, regulations on how companies can act, etc. And, not surprisingly, this lead a bunch of people to lash out at the SCOTUSblog Twitter account, without recognizing that it wasn’t actually the Supreme Court itself. And, then, SCOTUSblog decided to play along, retweeting some of the crazy attacks and responding to them in a hilarious, trolling fashion. Here are just a few of the best ones:
Um?? -Amy. RT @VictoriaaC0418: Hey @SCOTUSblog ? Thanks for treating women like second class citizens.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014
Noted. -Scalia MT @ypiddle: @SCOTUSblog You sided with the crazies. Good job!! Tell your boys to keep their thingies in their pants.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014
When you start reading our description. MT @ProgressivesWin: @SCOTUSblog When will you start honoring the constitution. #5OldBigots
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014
File a petition MT @yenisargueta: Thanks for not giving me the choice to my own body @SCOTUSblog Can I get carrots banned cause I want to?
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014
Whoa, ?uninformed?? MT @Nicole_Cameron: Wow. @SCOTUSblog what a way to wake up in 1950s. Giving healthcare to the uninformed, the prejudiced
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014
Or eating the cheap Kung Pao Chicken MT @NYCPainter1: Of all the bad decisions @SCOTUSblog made the last few years, #HobbyLobby is the worst
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014
Lost our copy, apologies. MT @opinali: @SCOTUSblog today you have f@cked up real hard. Go read the f@cking First Amendment again, OK?
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014
Seriously people, read MT @Devilsmirk: Does anyone actually read how @SCOTUSblog comes to their decisions? Read the actual ruling.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014
Come at us, bro MT @mazurslovedogs: @SCOTUSblog manages to screw up or endanger everyone?s life. Maybe someone needs to discuss impeachment!
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014
Needed a place to put it MT @TheResPublicaBK: Today is the day @SCOTUSblog allowed religion to be above the law. Congratulations
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014
We prefer them as our editor & manager. RT @Allout1 I guess @SCOTUSblog wants women barefoot, pregnant and cooking dinner.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014
Or when bloggers decide the law? MT @alyssaanton: @SCOTUSblog proves democracy cannot work when leaders are appointed instead of elected.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) July 1, 2014
Thurs. No, wait?Fri MT @Closetrighty: @SCOTUSblog can you at least tell me when your agents will confiscating my gf?s birth control.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) July 1, 2014
Really? Let?s let twitter decide. Ok? MT @The_Itch: @SCOTUSblog How do I become a justice? Pretty sure I?m smarter than 5 of you.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) July 1, 2014
#2: read a twitter bio RT @bradleytroth: @SCOTUSblog things a real person can do a corporation can?t: adopt a child.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) July 1, 2014
Affirmed: holy cows now protected MT @crashandcarry @SCOTUSblog, holy cow did you men mess up. Shame on u!
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) July 1, 2014
And then, of course, some of those same (and different) angry people started to notice the mocking tweets from the blog. And rather than recognizing their own mistakes… they doubled down, screaming about how crazy it is that the Supreme Court would tweet that way to people, leading to yet another layer of hilarity:
The passive aggressive way @SCOTUSblog is answering right now is horrible considering the position they just put women in. Not okay.
— Dumb of the Day (@WollyWollenberg) June 30, 2014
Drops mic. RT @sayyeslena: Have y?all seen what @SCOTUSblog is tweeting? #MyGovernmentIsBeingPassiveAggressive #Awkward
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014
You have no idea MT @ZwielichtFunkel: I?d have thought that @SCOTUSblog is a parody account. Is douchebaggery by government accounts normal?
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014
Beat heads on desks RT @USUfacts: @MattAHorton @SCOTUSblog pretty sure it?s their blog as run by their clerks. check your facts.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014
Sry MT @calph7: Hilarious that @SCOTUSblog is mocking lay persons? opinions. They don?t care, they?re their own branch of gov?t!
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014
FTW RT @tory_dube @SCOTUSblog decisions upset so many people & all they are doing on twitter is mocking those people. That?s just disturbing
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) July 1, 2014
Now let?s watch you try MT @noahtron watching @SCOTUSblog spin trying to cover their asses after today?s ruling is unrepentant visible smarm
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) July 1, 2014
And? scene. Goodnight MT @seanmcdh: was the @SCOTUSblog account hijacked by an angry 14 year old male? wow! So much for ??by the people.?
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) July 1, 2014
No -Ginsburg RT @notsalome shouldn?t @SCOTUSblog sign its tweets with the justice?s name who wrote the tweet?? #tcot
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) July 1, 2014
Filed Under: confusion, scotusblog, supreme court, trolling
Companies: hobby lobby, twitter
Comments on “SCOTUSblog's Best Trolling Of People Who Think Its Twitter Account Is The Supreme Court Itself”
> Frankly, it seems that the Supreme Court should figure out a way to give SCOTUSblog a press pass just as an apology for having to deal with all of those angry tweets…
It’s more likely @SCOTUSBlog will now get sued for trademark infringement, since clearly there is a lot of confusion over who is behind.
Re: Re:
Twitter users replying to the wrong account and unable to read a bio is the best definition of morons in a hurry that I can imagine.
Who is what's behind?
“who is behind”? Well, we know that SCOTUS is a bunch of behinds… :rolleyes:
Calling all mathematicians
Is there some formula or law that references density in relation to a bell curve of Twitter users that follow SCOTUSblog?
Prime example
Of shooting the messenger.
These people vote.
On issues that effect more than just themselves.
Seriously,
THESE PEOPLE VOTE.
Re: Re:
And notice how most of these crazy comments seem to come from the liberal end of the spectrum.
Re: Re: Re:
Not worth much.
I’m pretty sure that if SCOTUS was liberal, you’d get more people on the conservative side.
Especially when they lost on Obamacare… Oh boy was that ever a cluster…
Re: Re: Re:
That’s just because the ruling is in favor of Hobby Lobby, a religious organization. If they were outlawing the teaching of scientific challenges to evolution (as UK recently did) I’m sure the comments would all be conservative.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hobby Lobby cannot be a religious organisation. It has religious people in charge, but that doesn’t suddenly mean that Hobby Lobby has become a church. It means that Hobby Lobby is more interested in twisting the law in such a way as to receive all; the benefits of being a ‘Religious organisation’ with none of the responsibilities.
Shameful.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Of course it’s not a church, but I’m not sure why you think that matters. Heck, even a convent isn’t a church.
Please note that the government did not contest that their beliefs were sincerely held. This is not a case of a corporation cynically claiming to hold beliefs for tactical reasons. I’m also not sure what you think the “responsibilities” of a religious organization are, but I don’t think you’d change your opinion even if they held a church service every Sunday anyway.
Would you prefer a world where any for-profit corporation must only pursue maximum profits and ignore any and all moral beliefs?
What’s shameful is forcing people to violate their religious beliefs because you think 20 types of contraceptives should be free and someone objected to 4 of them.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why isnt that unlawed for that matter? Evolution isnt a theory but scientifically proven, irrefutable fact.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
There are the facts of evolution that make it a theory. ‘Guess’ in the common use is akin to ‘hypothesis’ and not ‘theory’.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
A theory by definition is a hypothesis supported by facts without the being proven true or false. The problem with the previous comment isn’t with the definition of theory. It’s with the use of the word evolution as it can have two distinct meanings and his comment conflates the two. Yes, it is a fact that evolution – the process by which living things change to adapt to their environment – exists. However, evolution – the explanation for the entire history of life on the planet, is still a theory albeit a very strong one supported by many facts.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Theories do not “graduate” into facts. Theories are our best explanations for facts. Evolution is an observable fact. The Theory of Evolution is the explanation. It’s the same with gravity.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“Unlawed”? Don’t believe I’ve heard that one before. Is that Newspeak or Nadsat?
Re: Re: Re:
Last year it was the same deal after Prop.8.
Idiocy doesn’t draw party lanes.
Re: Re: Re:
Which is sad because normaly it’s the Inbred sisterfucking Whiskey-Tango West Virginia Republicans who provide the stupid arguments.
A republican oftentimes either a poor-as-fuck trailer trash southerner, or a rich-as-fuck Corporate dictator.
The term “confusingly similar” springs to mind.
Is @TechdirtBlog still available?
Trademark infringement
Obviously didn’t pass the moron in a hurry test.
Because the issue itself is funny
Just think of the lulz to be had by someone who shares the same name as the next serial rapist / killer to make the news.
Hmm...
Probably not the best way to get a press pass…
And I thought everyone said the Supremes were tech-unsavvy…Tweeting live while making history, what? yeahjklol
Scary that these people vote, and more terrifying is that they think Twitter rage can change anything.
They can totally solve all of the worlds problems with an online petition, FB likes, or tweeting loud enough.
Perhaps that is the greatest trick that was ever pulled, we got them to sit at home and grump online rather than lift a finger and do anything in the real world.
Re: Re:
Re: Re:
Is grumping online about the world’s problems any worse than grumping online about people grumping online?
Is it better to be an idiot and vote than to be an idiot and not vote?
Re: Re:
On November 7, 2016 SCOTUSblog could always just send a reminder that people can vote online by tweeting their choice for president to @YourOfficialPollingPlaceWeSwear.
*THAT* is twitter-speak ? ? ?
okay, i really haven’t been missing anything…
Not worth much…
Tom Cruise ditches Scientology to jon the Hobby Lobby Creation Center Church.
Living under a rock...
Or that I’m not American so don’t get US news outside of what I read on techdirt and similiar special interest news/blogs therefore don’t really give a damn…
Well, the first thing you read on the website scotusblog.com is “Supreme Court of the United Status Blog”
This doesn’t really make it clear that it’s a press blog