New York Times pop culture reporter Reggie Ugwu, the paper’s podcast specialist, celebrated a left-wing SCOTUS-centered one, with an emphasis on vulgarity, in “The Hosts of ‘5-4’ Never Trusted the Supreme Court.”
Ugwu snuck in unchallenged praise for the left-wing activist podcast keyed to the overturning of Roe v Wade, and forwarded nasty attacks on conservative Supreme Court justices, under the guise of a feature story on a relatively obscure outlet, somehow worthy of the front of Tuesday’s Business section.
It was a contest between Bush v. Gore vs. Castle Rock vs. Gonzales for Rhiannon Hamam.
She was furious at the Supreme Court’s decision she considered to be the most grave of modern times. Bush epitomized to her the court’s opposition to democracy— Reversing an order by the Florida Supreme Court for a manual count and effectively deciding 2000’s presidential election ….
Then, last month, came the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, barging to the top — or bottom — of her list by overturning Roe v. Wade and revoking the constitutional right to an abortion.
“It was absolutely awful,” Hamam said. “It’s hard to avoid the sense that something has gone very wrong.”
Like millions of Americans, Hamam, a public defender and one of three hosts of the popular podcast “5-4,” has spent much of this spring and summer fixated on the court and the imminent consequences of its 6-3 conservative supermajority. According to an annual Gallup poll released in late June — following the leak of an early draft of the Dobbs ruling — public confidence in the Supreme Court is plummeting….
Reporter Ugwu demonstrated nothing but approval of the obscenity-loving lefty podcast stars (a podcast “trailer” on YouTube bragged that the hosts were “three pissed-off lawyers”), and smoothly channeled their radicalism.
Hamam’s podcast co-hosts, Michael Liroff & Peter (who requested to remain anonymous because their employer doesn’t know about the podcast), hate of the high courts is not a new thing. In fact, it’s something of a calling….
This approach is both meticulous and profane.A rapidly-growing number of people are interested in the same things as you.
Thank goodness!
To [host] Liroff, the growing popularity has made the podcast feel worthwhile….
Court-packing can be cool.
The hosts provide a constant supply of humorous judicial analysis and sardonic humor in conversation as well as on television.. In a video interview last Wednesday, they debated which of the nine justices is most worthy of contempt (unanimous: Clarence Thomas), whose opinions are the most painful to read (Liroff: Brett Kavanaugh “writes like if you gave a talented law student a concussion”) and pet ideas for reform (all want to expand the court by a minimum of four justices; Liroff suggested the regular appointment of an additional justice every two years).
These are the things that average. Times readers find cute and charming: Let’s cuss out a dead Supreme Court Justice!
….(A chatbot’s response to any mention of the name “Scalia” begins with a four-letter word.
The next is inevitable, one awaits it TimesStory accusing conservatives of being mean-spirited and threatening the unity of American politics ….
About Post Author
