U.S. chief justice warns of internet disinformation, urges civics education

[Chomsky]

(Reuters) - U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts expressed concern on Tuesday about disinformation amplified by the internet and social media as he focused his year-end report on the weakening state of civics education in the United States.

“In our age, when social media can instantly spread rumor and false information on a grand scale, the public’s need to understand our government, and the protections it provides, is ever more vital,” Roberts said in his annual report on behalf of the federal judiciary.

The chief justice warned that Americans “have come to take democracy for granted, and civic education has fallen by the wayside.”

Source: Reuters) U.S. chief justice warns of internet disinformation, urges civics education

Besides the general societal & governmental impact of Justice Robert's statement, since this is a political debate site - what are we to make of the Justice's statement in political terms?

Justice Roberts recently had a public Twitter spat with Trump (Nov '18), over politicizing the judiciary. And now, he likely will soon be presiding over Trump's Senate trial where he will be determine what evidentiary materials and witnesses to allow into the trial record. In today's statement, he seems to be calling for factual transparency in judicial proceedings, espousing the need for facts to accurately be put before the citizenry with understanding in context.

So in political & impeachment terms, what if anything can we make of his current statement?

 

[washunut]

Source: Reuters) U.S. chief justice warns of internet disinformation, urges civics education

Besides the general societal & governmental impact of Justice Robert's statement, since this is a political debate site - what are we to make of the Justice's statement in political terms?

Justice Roberts recently had a public Twitter spat with Trump (Nov '18), over politicizing the judiciary. And now, he likely will soon be presiding over Trump's Senate trial where he will be determine what evidentiary materials and witnesses to allow into the trial record. In today's statement, he seems to be calling for factual transparency in judicial proceedings, espousing the need for facts to accurately be put before the citizenry with understanding in context.

So in political & impeachment terms, what if anything can we make of his current statement?

You bring up an interesting point. If Roberts is a never-Trumper should he recuse himself?

 

[Acadia]

I agree. Let's keep our kids in school to teach them civics, instead of giving them days off to "protest".
Civics and the Constitution are the only things keeping our country together at this point.

 

[ecofarm]

I support a push for greater civics education, breadth and depth. A lot of people don't understand how the Enlightenment and an understanding of socially natural rights lead to the Western world, let alone modern mechanization.

 

[Divine_Wind]

Source: Reuters) U.S. chief justice warns of internet disinformation, urges civics education

Besides the general societal & governmental impact of Justice Robert's statement, since this is a political debate site - what are we to make of the Justice's statement in political terms?

Justice Roberts recently had a public Twitter spat with Trump (Nov '18), over politicizing the judiciary. And now, he likely will soon be presiding over Trump's Senate trial where he will be determine what evidentiary materials and witnesses to allow into the trial record. In today's statement, he seems to be calling for factual transparency in judicial proceedings, espousing the need for facts to accurately be put before the citizenry with understanding in context.

So in political & impeachment terms, what if anything can we make of his current statement?

I think Roberts is joining the ranks of Republicans tiring of Trump's nutjob antics.

 

[Chomsky]

You bring up an interesting point. If Roberts is a never-Trumper should he recuse himself?

Depends upon the Justice's actions, don't you think? And also the definition of the ambiguous term you're attempting to propagate.

There's no harm in despising Trump. Half the country does.

 

[Chomsky]

I support a push for greater civics education, breadth and depth. A lot of people don't understand how the Enlightenment and an understanding of socially natural rights lead to the Western world, let alone modern mechanization.

I've been beating on this need for better civics education for ... well ... many ... many ... years.

I'm also blown away by some of the lack of Constitutional understanding I sometimes see among my fellow Americans. How can you swear an oath to something you don't know? How do you act within that oath, if you don't know what's going on?

 

[ecofarm]

I've been beating on this need for better civics education for ... well ... many ... many ... years.

I'm also blown away by some of the lack of Constitutional understanding I sometimes see among my fellow Americans. How can you swear an oath to something you don't know? How do you act within that oath, if you don't know what's going on?

I agree with Roberts. We've taken it for granted.

 

[charliebrown]

He states that there is misinformation on the internet and he states that there is a lack of civic understanding/education in our society. There is absolutely nothing to gain from this article that is not already known to any observing person.

 

[trixare4kids]

Source: Reuters) U.S. chief justice warns of internet disinformation, urges civics education

Besides the general societal & governmental impact of Justice Robert's statement, since this is a political debate site - what are we to make of the Justice's statement in political terms?

Justice Roberts recently had a public Twitter spat with Trump (Nov '18), over politicizing the judiciary. And now, he likely will soon be presiding over Trump's Senate trial where he will be determine what evidentiary materials and witnesses to allow into the trial record. In today's statement, he seems to be calling for factual transparency in judicial proceedings, espousing the need for facts to accurately be put before the citizenry with understanding in context.

So in political & impeachment terms, what if anything can we make of his current statement?

I think Justice Roberts is warning America that our democracy is at stake if we, Americans, continue to put our faith in the rumor mill that runs rampant on social media. Hence, why their understanding of constitutional protections for them becomes paramount. Like he, federal judges should be interested in seeing that the public becomes educated about these protections. Not sure his opinion has anything to do with the impeachment process though.

 

[Chomsky]

I think Roberts is joining the ranks of Republicans tiring of Trump's nutjob antics.

I think the above was clear with Robert's Tweet exchange with Trump a year ago, though Roberts - being cognizant of his Constitutional responsibility - quickly & appropriately backed-off.

Obviously personal feelings over matters like this always will reside. But I believe Roberts will be able to compartmentalize himself to providing good jurisprudence, as can be seen by him immediately breaking-off responses to Trump in order to maintain the integrity of the bench, even though Trump tried to egg him on.

However through his Tweet exchange with Trump, and now with his annual statement yesterday, I believe Roberts is showing us insight into his judicial ideology. And that ideology seems likely to be one of factual accuracy, within the greater Constitutional context.

If I had to guess, I suspect McConnel, the GOP, and Trump are a bit anxious over the prospect of him presiding.

 

[chuckiechan]

Source: Reuters) U.S. chief justice warns of internet disinformation, urges civics education

Besides the general societal & governmental impact of Justice Robert's statement, since this is a political debate site - what are we to make of the Justice's statement in political terms?

Justice Roberts recently had a public Twitter spat with Trump (Nov '18), over politicizing the judiciary. And now, he likely will soon be presiding over Trump's Senate trial where he will be determine what evidentiary materials and witnesses to allow into the trial record. In today's statement, he seems to be calling for factual transparency in judicial proceedings, espousing the need for facts to accurately be put before the citizenry with understanding in context.

So in political & impeachment terms, what if anything can we make of his current statement?

He and many others are laying down political markers against the pathological hatred and insider vandalism against the Trump administration. Like him or hate him, no one has the right to try to nefariously cripple an administration.

People in power are concerned about the inability to honestly inform the electorate, leaving us wide open for even more damaging disinformation campaigns by entities hostile to the USA - I.E. Russia and China.

Politicism of everything is generated in the media ratings wars, and truth is the casualty.

Trump’s judicial problem is one single judge stopping nationwide rulings. I agree.

 

[MauiMan]

Source: Reuters) U.S. chief justice warns of internet disinformation, urges civics education

Besides the general societal & governmental impact of Justice Robert's statement, since this is a political debate site - what are we to make of the Justice's statement in political terms?

Justice Roberts recently had a public Twitter spat with Trump (Nov '18), over politicizing the judiciary. And now, he likely will soon be presiding over Trump's Senate trial where he will be determine what evidentiary materials and witnesses to allow into the trial record. In today's statement, he seems to be calling for factual transparency in judicial proceedings, espousing the need for facts to accurately be put before the citizenry with understanding in context.

So in political & impeachment terms, what if anything can we make of his current statement?

Justice Roberts apparently recognize it’s important to challenge misstatements or deliberate lies, especially consequential ones.

We need to lead with the facts, contest the falsehoods and swiftly return to the facts again. Instead of amplifying the lies, we must amplify the truths.

 

[Divine_Wind]

I think the above was clear with Robert's Tweet exchange with Trump a year ago, though Roberts - being cognizant of his Constitutional responsibility - quickly & appropriately backed-off.

Obviously personal feelings over matters like this always will reside. But I believe Roberts will be able to compartmentalize himself to providing good jurisprudence, as can be seen by him immediately breaking-off responses to Trump in order to maintain the integrity of the bench, even though Trump tried to egg him on.

However through his Tweet exchange with Trump, and now with his annual statement yesterday, I believe Roberts is showing us insight into his judicial ideology. And that ideology seems likely to be one of factual accuracy, within the greater Constitutional context.

If I had to guess, I suspect McConnel, the GOP, and Trump are a bit anxious over the prospect of him presiding.

A good reason why Justices are appointed for life.

 

[Chomsky]

He states that there is misinformation on the internet and he states that there is a lack of civic understanding/education in our society. There is absolutely nothing to gain from this article that is not already known to any observing person.

Context, charliebrown, context. We're trying to discuss what the Justices words & actions may mean in terms of him presiding over the bench during Trump's trial. All jurists bring their legal ideology to their jurisprudence, and Roberts will be no different.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

So in political & impeachment terms, what if anything can we make of his current statement?

Roberts will very likely not rule, at least substantively, in Trump's favor with respect to the major cases involving Trump that will be appearing before the Court.

Roberts is a real conservative. Trump and his supporters are fascists.

 

[BlueTex]

He and many others are laying down political markers against the pathological hatred and insider vandalism against the Trump administration. Like him or hate him, no one has the right to try to nefariously cripple an administration.

Who is trying to cripple the administration? Congress has right and responsibility to perform oversight. Just because the GOP congress in Trump's first two years gave him a pass, there is nothing the 116th house has done that even comes close to crippling the administration. Just the opposite has occurred by Trump's insistence on obstructing congress and assuming powers that were never intended for the president (national emergency for the wall funds for example).

People in power are concerned about the inability to honestly inform the electorate, leaving us wide open for even more damaging disinformation campaigns by entities hostile to the USA - I.E. Russia and China.

Politicism of everything is generated in the media ratings wars, and truth is the casualty.

Honestly informing the electorate depends on honest answers and honest oversight... Obstructing and concealing the workings of our government do far more harm than anything from a foreign power. Giuliani's amateurish and laughable "investigation" in Ukraine is a perfect example. There are well established federal laws to pursue foreign corruption by the DOJ. Why are they not being utilized? Why are the courts being left out?

 

[ClaraD]

You bring up an interesting point. If Roberts is a never-Trumper should he recuse himself?

With that nonsense all of the Supreme Court Justices appointed by Trump should recuse themselves, because after all they cannot be impartial in your opinion. Roberts was appointed by Bush. As stated before, there are no Republican judges, there are no Democrat judges, there are only judges.

 

[ClaraD]

A good reason why Justices are appointed for life.

Wait until Trump realizes he cannot fire a Supreme Court Justice

 

[KevinKohler]

A great man once said that a lie can make it halfway around the world before the truth can even get its pants on.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

You bring up an interesting point. If Roberts is a never-Trumper should he recuse himself?

It's not Robert's fault that Trump has politicized the slow destruction of the U.S. Constitution, nor is it Robert's fault that Trump supporters are too ignorant or too inclined towards authoritarianism to conceive of Trump's actions as being unconstitutional.

 

[washunut]

Depends upon the Justice's actions, don't you think? And also the definition of the ambiguous term you're attempting to propagate.

There's no harm in despising Trump. Half the country does.

What ambiguous term am I trying to propagate???

Half the country has despised the sitting president for the last two decades at least. Perhaps Bush II got a pass for a couple of years after 9/11.

Disappointed in your response. Thought more of you. A judge despising a participant in a trial is fine with you, really???

 

[Mycroft]

Source: Reuters) U.S. chief justice warns of internet disinformation, urges civics education

Besides the general societal & governmental impact of Justice Robert's statement, since this is a political debate site - what are we to make of the Justice's statement in political terms?

Justice Roberts recently had a public Twitter spat with Trump (Nov '18), over politicizing the judiciary. And now, he likely will soon be presiding over Trump's Senate trial where he will be determine what evidentiary materials and witnesses to allow into the trial record. In today's statement, he seems to be calling for factual transparency in judicial proceedings, espousing the need for facts to accurately be put before the citizenry with understanding in context.

So in political & impeachment terms, what if anything can we make of his current statement?

I know Roberts probably doesn't want to create dangerous waves, but he should have included disinformation from the mainstream media, as well.

 

[washunut]

With that nonsense all of the Supreme Court Justices appointed by Trump should recuse themselves, because after all they cannot be impartial in your opinion. Roberts was appointed by Bush. As stated before, there are no Republican judges, there are no Democrat judges, there are only judges.

If you believe that there is a bridge I want to sell you.

Doubt anyone on this site is truly that naive as to believe what you posted.

The same as senators can be impartial jurors.

 

[bubbabgone]

Source: Reuters) U.S. chief justice warns of internet disinformation, urges civics education

Besides the general societal & governmental impact of Justice Robert's statement, since this is a political debate site - what are we to make of the Justice's statement in political terms?

Justice Roberts recently had a public Twitter spat with Trump (Nov '18), over politicizing the judiciary. And now, he likely will soon be presiding over Trump's Senate trial where he will be determine what evidentiary materials and witnesses to allow into the trial record. In today's statement, he seems to be calling for factual transparency in judicial proceedings, espousing the need for facts to accurately be put before the citizenry with understanding in context.

So in political & impeachment terms, what if anything can we make of his current statement?

Robert's didn't discriminate between foreign and domestic disinformation.
But by their example, Reuters gave the impression foreign disinformation is the culprit.