Dahlia Lithwick in Slate, May 22, 2023, asks the question what if reporters covered the Supreme Court as they cover Congress. She argues that there is too much focus on the law and not enough on the effect of the court’s decisions on the country. “What if we were to stop covering SCOTUS as a breathless cult of personality, as if it were the House of Windsor?” writes Lithwick. “What if we broadened this beat from changes in doctrine to changes in justice? What if we looked at the whole story—money, influence, campaigns, Harlan Crow, and all?” She suggests more coverage of the long-term effects of decisions; more reporting on the effects of decisions on actual people; more on how the court operates from ethics to clerks to the connections to such as the Supreme Court Historical Society; more on judicial confirmations; and more on the conventions of Supreme Court coverage.