SCOTUS Ignores Previous Rulings, Allows AL To Use New Maps In Mid-Terms
Sarcastic Loaded Language
How They Deceive You
Propaganda
Hyper-partisan blog uses sarcasm, snarl words, factual errors, and omissions to misleadingly frame a procedural SCOTUS order as conservative corruption.
Main Device
Sarcastic Loaded Language
Employs snarl words like 'Slimy John Roberts' and sarcasm such as 'Long live the Confederacy!' to emotionally demonize the Court and prime outrage.
Archetype
Hyper-partisan progressive blogger
Crooks and Liars-style activist journalism from unreliable left sources spins conservative rulings as moral betrayals with no journalistic rigor.
Deceives by recasting a routine SCOTUS remand as partisan perfidy via sarcasm, timeline errors, and omitted legal context like Louisiana v. Callais.
Writer's Worldview
“Hyper-partisan progressive blogger”
7 findings · 4 omissions · 5 sources compared
What is your news hiding from you?
Same analysis. Any article. Completely free.
Narrative Analysis
Verdict: This Crooks and Liars article turns a procedural Supreme Court shadow docket order into a tale of conservative corruption through sarcasm, selective framing, and timeline errors, while omitting key legal context that explains the decision.
Key Techniques and Evidence
The piece employs emotional priming and loaded language to rally readers:
- Snarl words like "Slimy John Roberts," "total contradiction," and "deal with this shit" frame the Court as politically motivated.
"Slimy John Roberts just can't understand why we think the court is political! And then turns around and does this..."
- Sarcasm, such as "Long live the Confederacy! Huzzah!," evokes historical animosity without evidence tying the order to racial animus.
Misleading framing on legal consistency:
- Title claims SCOTUS "Ignores Previous Rulings," implying arbitrariness, but overlooks the 2023 denial predating *Louisiana v. Callais* (June 2025), which shifted Voting Rights Act (VRA) interpretation.
- Labels *Callais* as "gutted the Voting Rights Act," a charged phrase for a ruling limiting race as the predominant districting factor.
Factual sequencing error:
- States Gov. Kay Ivey "responded" to the May 11, 2026, SCOTUS order by calling a special session, but her announcement was May 7—four days earlier, anticipating post-*Callais* relief (per Alabama Reflector reporting).
These elements prioritize outrage over explanation, eroding informativeness.
Critical Omissions of Verifiable Facts
The article skips concrete details that clarify the order's narrow scope:
- Procedural nature: SCOTUS vacated lower court injunctions blocking Alabama's 2023 map and remanded for review under *Callais*—not a permanent endorsement. This allowed interim use for the May 19 primary pending lower courts' reassessment (SCOTUSblog, NBC News).
- Divided Court: 6-3 unsigned order; liberal justices (Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson) dissented on timing grounds under the *Purcell* principle, noting voter confusion risks (WVTM13).
- Precedent shift: 2023 SCOTUS denial upheld a VRA block pre-*Callais*; 2026 vacatur applied the new standard, avoiding "contradiction" (SCOTUSblog archives).
These facts reframe the story from "interference" to routine application of updated law, materially altering reader understanding.
Author and Outlet Context
Susie Madrak writes for Crooks and Liars, rated unreliable/problematic with hyper-partisan left bias by Ad Fontes Media. A progressive blogger lacking formal journalism credentials, Madrak focuses on anti-conservative commentary via personal sites like Suburban Guerrilla. This setup favors interpretive rants over balanced reporting, as seen here.
Coverage Comparison
Other outlets provide procedural focus or partisan angles without the sarcasm:
- Neutral legal sources like SCOTUSblog emphasize shadow docket mechanics and *Callais* remand.
- CNN highlights partisan/racial impacts (e.g., Black Democrat's seat), NPR amplifies Democratic dilution claims and protests—contrasting the blog's ad hominem style but sharing left-leaning emphasis on GOP gains.
- NYT and Congress.gov stick to dry facts on state requests and prior injunctions.
Bottom Line
The article correctly flags real timing concerns near the May 19 primary, echoing the liberal dissent—a valid point echoed elsewhere. But its sarcasm, omissions, and errors distort a standard legal maneuver into a conspiracy, better suited to activism than analysis. Readers gain more from procedural breakdowns than partisan venting; this piece informs less than it inflames.
(Word count: 512)
Further Reading
- SCOTUSblog: Court denies Alabama's request to use voting map with only one majority-Black district (Neutral legal history on 2023 denial)
- CNN: Supreme Court enables Alabama to eliminate congressional district held by Black Democrat (Racial/partisan impact focus)
- NPR: Alabama's legislature poised to adopt new congressional map after SCOTUS ruling (Activism and dilution claims)
- New York Times: Alabama urges justices to jettison current map (Procedural state action)
Investigation Log · 49 steps
Starting investigation...
Investigating Crooks and Liars
Investigating Susie Madrak
Searching for ""SCOTUS allows Alabama to use 2023 congressional map" OR "SCOTUS Alabama voting maps emergency order""
Verify the main claim about SCOTUS allowing Alabama to use a previously struck-down map for elections.
Searching for ""Louisiana v. Callais" SCOTUS ruling Voting Rights Act"
Verify the claim about SCOTUS gutting VRA in Louisiana v. Callais and its relation to Alabama.
Searching for "Alabama Gov Kay Ivey special session congressional maps May 2024 primary"
Verify timeline: special session after primaries started, absentee ballots cast.
Searching for "Alabama congressional primary date 2024"
Confirm primary dates to check if changes were close to election.
Source: Crooks and Liars
Crooks and Liars is rated by Ad Fontes Media with a reliability score of 21.53 (Unreliable, Problematic) and a bias score of -21.10 (Hyper-Partisan Left), based on analyst evaluations of its content. Wikipedia describes it as a progressive political news blog that has been called hyperpartisan. The site solicits donations through drives, potentially incentivizing sensational anti-Republican/Trump content, with no detailed independent fact-checking or correction records.
Source: Susie Madrak
Susie Madrak is a Philadelphia-based blogger, writer, and editor primarily associated with Crooks and Liars, a progressive news blog. She operates personal sites including susiemadrak.com and Suburban Guerrilla on Substack, with no evidence of formal journalistic credentials beyond a Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts education. No fact-checking ratings, awards, or major media affiliations position her as an independent partisan commentator.
Searching for "Alabama primary election date 2026 congressional"
Confirm the date of Alabama's 2026 congressional primaries to check if they had already begun when special session called or SCOTUS acted.
Searching for ""SCOTUS" "Alabama" "congressional map" order OR stay OR application 2026 site:scotusblog.com"
Check SCOTUSblog for any recent shadow docket order on Alabama's request to use 2023 map.
Searching for "SCOTUS grants Alabama request congressional map 2026 OR "allows Alabama" map"
Verify if SCOTUS actually granted Alabama's emergency application to use the 2023 map.
Searching for "Alabama absentee ballots cast May 2026 primary before special session"
Verify if absentee ballots had already been cast in the May 19 primary when Gov Ivey called special session.
Comparing coverage of "SCOTUS Alabama congressional maps 2026"
Searching for "Purcell principle SCOTUS Alabama map 2026"
Check claims about contradicting previous rulings on not changing close to elections (Purcell).
Coverage comparison completed
Searching for "Alabama congressional map SCOTUS order May 2026 site:foxnews.com OR site:breitbart.com OR site:nationalreview.com OR site:washingtonexaminer.com"
Find right-leaning coverage of SCOTUS Alabama map decision for opposite bias comparison.
Searching for "SCOTUS Alabama map Purcell principle contradiction OR ignored 2026"
Verify if SCOTUS ignored previous Purcell rulings by allowing change close to 2026 primary.
Source Credibility
Article published by Crooks and Liars, a hyper-partisan left blog rated unreliable, and written by progressive blogger Susie Madrak with no formal journalistic credentials.
Readers should know the outlet and author have strong left biases and low reliability, incentivizing sensational anti-conservative framing over neutral reporting.
Emotional Manipulation
Uses snarl words and sarcasm like 'Slimy John Roberts', 'total contradiction', 'stunning, last-minute move to interfere', 'Long live the Confederacy! Huzzah!', 'deal with this shit all over again'.
Primes readers emotionally against SCOTUS conservatives and Alabama Republicans, turning factual reporting into partisan rant that undermines credibility.
Framing
Title and lead frame SCOTUS as 'ignoring previous rulings' and making a 'contradiction' on election timing rules, without noting changed legal context from Louisiana v. Callais.
Implies arbitrary political favoritism by conservative justices, misleading on why SCOTUS vacated (new precedent requiring remand).
Omission
Omits that SCOTUS vacated lower court injunctions and remanded for reconsideration under new Callais standard, not permanently endorsing the 2023 map.
Readers think SCOTUS fully approved a racially discriminatory map, not a procedural step allowing interim use pending lower court review.
Missing Context
SCOTUS order on May 11, 2026, was a 6-3 decision vacating lower court orders and remanding cases for reconsideration in light of Louisiana v. Callais.
Clarifies the order is procedural and temporary, not a final reversal endorsing the map long-term, changing impression from blatant interference to application of new precedent.
Missing Context
Liberal justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson dissented, citing voter confusion close to the May 19 primary.
Provides balance by noting SCOTUS was divided and liberals agreed on timing concerns, countering article's narrative of unified conservative meddling.
Framing
Calls Louisiana v. Callais ruling one that 'gutted the Voting Rights Act', a dysphemistic label presenting conservative legal interpretation as destructive.
Biases against the ruling by implying VRA evisceration rather than limiting race-based districting to avoid gerrymandering.
Factual Error
Missequences events: Claims Gov. Ivey 'responded' to SCOTUS order by calling special session, but session announced May 7, SCOTUS order May 11.
Implies SCOTUS prompted last-minute chaos; actually state acted first anticipating relief post-Callais.
Framing
Calls 2023 map 'new maps' in title and 'different map'; it's reversion to previously-enacted 2023 map blocked by courts.
Frames as abrupt new gerrymander rather than restoring legislatively-approved map pending review.
Missing Context
In 2023, SCOTUS denied Alabama's similar request to use 2023 map for 2024 elections because it preceded the Callais ruling changing VRA interpretation.
Explains why not a 'contradiction': legal landscape changed with Callais precedent requiring remand.
Missing Context
The SCOTUS order was unsigned, 6-3 with liberal dissent on Purcell/timing grounds, not a full endorsement of the map.
Shows division and procedural nature, not conservative plot.
Writing analysis narrative
Analysis narrative ready
Writing verdict summary
Investigation complete. Preparing report...
The Compass
You see how this outlet sees the world.
How do you see it? Find your political shape in a few minutes.
Take the testOr check your own article