Maybe I have just forgotten how to English, but this sounds borderline incoherent to me. Either way I can't make sense of any of this article. >>> If the high

Maybe I have just forgotten how to English, but this sounds borderline incoherent to me. Either way I can't make sense of any of this article. >>> If the high court is not in fact behaving in a fashion that makes its decisions respected, the real question is: Why are we all zealously watching and reporting on its decisions as though they are immutable legal truths? Why are we scientifically analyzing every case that comes down as if it holds value? The obvious answer is that these decisions have real consequences—something the past year has showed us far too graphically. But if the Supreme Court is no longer functioning as a real “court,” why are we mostly still treating its output as if it were simply the “law”? Maybe the real question is: what do you think quotation marks are for? >>> In some sense, the answer is that the Supreme Court’s power and prominence is mediated by the journalists that report on the institution, and we as journalists rely on the court for legitimacy and prominence in return What?