3 ms·

I first heard about this a few days ago in a WSJ editorial Their take? Well, the editorial was titled "The Supreme Court Considers the Right to Trial by Jury",

I first heard about this a few days ago in a WSJ editorial Their take? Well, the editorial was titled "The Supreme Court Considers the Right to Trial by Jury", so, yeah, they considered it a good thing. Then there's this, which is 20 paragraphs of scaremongering about fringe legal theories that will destroy the government. Wikipedia seems to agree that it's about the 7th amendment and administrative law judges. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-supreme-court-considers-the-right-to-trial-by-jury-sec-jarkesy-regulation-civil-rights-5abde7e7 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-supreme-court-considers-the... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_v._Jarkesy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_v._Jarkesy

claytongulick 3y ago
The Atlantic seems to have a pronounced political bias. I am occasionally pleasantly surprised by some of their reporting, but I've mostly found the quality (or lack thereof) to be roughly on par with this article.
- jeffbee 3y ago
  The "Ideas" section of the Atlantic is the least doctrinaire of all. They run all kinds of stuff in there. It's almost like a blog aggregator. You'll note this is the author's first contribution to the magazine.
  - claytongulick 3y ago
    Thanks for mentioning that, I wasn't aware. It helps explain some of the variation I see there.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]