This is a prime example of the press exposing its activist nature. When these select judges ruled on Trump’s activities, it was hyperactive coverage and banner headlines. Judge James Boasberg has become something of a media darling for imposing injunctions and TROs on deportation efforts. Yet when these cases rise to the Supreme Court and get reversed, you might see some pat reporting and solitary articles.

Logic would dictate that if these were in fact serious cases, the coverage would match on either side of a ruling. But as we have become conditioned to for some time, the press is largely dictated by emotion and partisanship. When these judges came out with rulings opposing Trump’s policies, it was blaring headlines, round-the-clock coverage, and every exploration made into how the president was defying the Constitution and burning down our democracy.

Now we get solitary news items and a calming of the waters. Primetime pundits are not delving into the prospect of rogue judges threatening our democracy by attempting to override the president. No “experts” are brought on camera to criticize courts trying to step in and wrest Executive Branch control from the Chief Executive. Outlets are not sharing op-eds about the meaning of it all concerning SCOTUS.

This is a clear sign of an activist media complex. The coverage of the initial judgements were not merely sober presentations of the facts; they were promoting an agenda and encouraging these actions by the judges. Once the rulings come in, then the media makes proclamations and charges Trump with “defying the courts” accusations and interpreting worst-case scenarios.

This is a major advance in the moves by the partisan press. This is not merely farming a narrative anymore; this is a blatant attempt to influence governance. There is a clear anti-administration agenda and they're not even attempting to hide it. They begin from the standpoint that Trump is wrong, regardless of the issue, and then strain to manipulate details to suit that accusation.

Look at one of the impotent arguments made about the use of the Alien Enemies Act when it was said to be invalid because it is an old law from the 1700s. Somehow, this was supposed to suggest that the AEA no longer counts. But for this logic to stand, then you have to question the legitimacy of the very Constitution itself, given that the document predates the law they do not like.