Seven weeks from the midterms, the Supreme Court rejects Trump's mail-in voting restrictions
the same fact, two accounts
this subject is more divergent than 95% of the subjects analysed
AustraliaCanberra is particularly taking note of Donald Trump's unprecedented attack on his own Supreme Court, more so than the legal details of the ruling that blocks his restrictions on mail-in voting.
What each one tells
opposition
GermanyBerlin distinguishes Trump's legal defeat from his broader political victory: the Supreme Court blocks his new rules on mail-in voting, but the German press sees this as a costless setback for a president whose real goal would be to cast doubt on the reliability of the November election.
- Australia
focused on the presidential reaction
the narrative devotes most of the space to Donald Trump's statement rather than the Court's reasoning.
Omission of the dissenting motives
the articles name the two dissenting judges without developing their motives.
What the account puts first
Germanydefeat as a delayed victory
the narrative presents Trump's legal setback as having no consequence for his actual political goal.
Focusing on the Democratic reaction
the account notes the relief of the Democratic camp at the outset, without citing an equivalent Republican reaction at this point in the narrative.
- Australia
Reliance on the executive's statement
the defense of the presidential attack by the Attorney General occupies a notable place in the narrative.
What it leans on
Australia onlyGermanythis perspective does not carry this information
and the figures
this press does not report this figure
Vote count of judges
majority votes out of 9
only one reports ittwo of the nine judges expressed dissent
this press does not report this figure
Share of mail-in votes
% of voters
this press does not report this figure