Because we didn’t have enough to divide us as a people already, the Department of Homeland Security is generating plenty of backlash and consternation by announcing the creation of a Disinformation Governance Board. DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas insists that the board will only concern itself with false information being spread globally about the United States immigration policy, border status, and Russian accounts of what is going on in Ukraine. It will attempt to counteract that “disinformation” by having posts removed from social media and to shut down foreign websites. But that hasn’t stopped Fox News and other Trumpkins from labeling the board “Joe Biden’s Ministry of Truth”. It also doesn’t help that the person selected to head up the board–Nina Jankowicz–is on record as believing that what she considers to be hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment.
But let’s look at the nearly impossible task any board, department or commission faces when engaging in a self-described battle against disinformation. We can start with the report last night from Politico that has caused even further division in our ranks.
The website is reporting that it has obtained a “draft decision” from the US Supreme Court that reads like a majority of the justices are about to overturn the Roe vs Wade ruling that federally legalized abortion in 1973. The story was picked up by every major news outlet last night, all sending out “Breaking News Alert: Supreme Court Set to Overturn Roe”
The Politico article spends several paragraphs defending the authenticity of the document, stating that it came from someone “familiar with the Mississippi case” that the court will be ruling on, that it “follows previous Supreme Court opinion forms”–including footnotes and references. If it is a fake, someone certainly put in a lot of time to make it look good, as it is more than 100-pages long.
But it’s also the first time that a document like this has “leaked” from the Supreme Court. Everyone agrees that draft decisions and opinions circulate freely between justices during their deliberations–and that justices on occasion have changed their votes after reading draft opinions from their colleagues. So, has the Supreme Court “Voted to Overturn Roe vs Wade” as is reported in the story?
To determine that, the Disinformation Governance Board’s only option would be to question each individual Supreme Court Justice to determine their current “vote” on the opinion–which Politico says was written by Justice Samuel Alito. The only problem, the Department of Homeland Security does not have the legal authority to question members of the Supreme Court–whether informally or through subpoena. And given the tight nature of the court’s operation, few if any justices would actually agree to answer questions on their decision-making process before a ruling is made and final opinions are published.
Besides, the genie is already out of the bottle when it comes to public consumption of this story. Those who oppose abortion are celebrating what they anticipate is a victory for their cause–while also calling into question the motivations of the person “familiar with the case” in releasing a draft opinion for the first time in the Supreme Court’s history and Politico publishing it. The general feeling is that the release is intended to somehow use public outcry to dissuade any justices still on the fence from overturning Roe vs Wade. Meanwhile those that contend Roe vs Wade should be upheld–including a number of Democratic lawmakers and those running for public office right here in Wisconsin–are demanding immediate drafting of bills to codify the legality of abortion in the US and also court packing–with calls for President Biden to nominate additional liberal justices to get immediate Senate approval while Democrats can approve nominees with 50-votes and the Vice President casting the tie-breaker. And of course, there are calls to stage a January 6th-like storming of the Supreme Court Building. Again, all on the publication of a document whose veracity cannot be confirmed in any way.
So, is the draft opinion “information” or “disinformation”? What if the ruling from the Supreme Court in a couple of months overturns Roe vs Wade–but the legal arguments made in the majority opinion come from a different justice and cite entirely different case law? Or, what if the high court decides that the Mississippi case differs substantially enough from Roe that the 1973 decision can still stand–but Mississippi’s law can as well?
To borrow a phrase from the “X Files”: “The truth is out there”, sometimes you just can’t determine it in real time.
