You'd think it would be pretty simple to report about what happened at the Supreme Court this term.

You can dial right into oral arguments.

The court's rulings are completely public.

But Slate's Mark Joseph Stern, he says he could start a little collection of the Supreme Court headlines he thinks totally missed the mark.

This is from the AP.

It came out last week.

It read, unusually agreeable Supreme Court ends their term with conservative wins.

What do you think about a headline like that?

Wrong and bad.

Bad.

Very bad.

Mark's got a very particular way of looking at the nine justices.

His headline last week, when all the decisions were finally out,

the Supreme Court's conservatives have laid the groundwork for the devastation to come.

You would have to be so polyana-ish and so blind to the internal dynamics of the court to believe that this term reflected any kind of actual agreeability across the justices. What we saw

instead were bitter compromises and a couple of sort of merciful punts that will not, in the end,

I fear, forestall the broader damage for that much longer.

It's funny because you're making it sound more like a hostage situation for the liberal

justices. Yes, absolutely. That is what we've got going on here.

To illustrate his point, Mark says, just look at one of the court's unanimous decisions this

year, Fulton versus Philadelphia.

In this case, the justices mandated the city of Philadelphia had to continue working with Catholic

...