Supreme Court decisions are actually quite readable. They tend to be extremely intelligent and I often end up reading both the majority, as well as the dissenting opinions – and agreeing to both :)
That being said, I also disagree with a blanket indictment of "the media". Yes, court cases often turn on details that the public debate doesn't focus on, such as federal vs. states' powers in regards to the voting rights act. But that's because they focus more on the motivation, and the impact, of these cases. The southern challenge of the voting rights act wasn't motivated by concerns of federal overreach, or a drive to introduce evidence-based decision-making into politics.
> The southern challenge of the voting rights act wasn't motivated by concerns of federal overreach
“Congress — if it is to divide the states — must identify those jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions. It cannot rely simply on the past,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
> or a drive to introduce evidence-based decision-making into politics
“If Congress had started from scratch in 2006, it plainly could not have enacted the present coverage formula. It would have been irrational for Congress to distinguish between states in such a fundamental way based on 40-year-old data, when today’s statistics tell an entirely different story,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote.
Beyond singling out southern states, and deciding whether individual court cases could be sufficient rather than having special federal oversight, the core arguments made against the act was that the current data doesn't support the need for such an act in 2016.
The justices who dissented even agreed that racial discrimination was still an issue in the country. But they found this law and the arguments supporting the continuation of special federal powers over specific states to be a poor and outdated means to confront this issue.
In this case SCOTUS invited Congress to revise the formula... twice. Congress couldn't get their act together.
I'm reasonably confident that is why Roberts voted to uphold Obamacare, among other decisions. The justices know that if they strike something down the odds of Congress fixing it are virtually nil, so they try to craft compromise decisions.
That being said, I also disagree with a blanket indictment of "the media". Yes, court cases often turn on details that the public debate doesn't focus on, such as federal vs. states' powers in regards to the voting rights act. But that's because they focus more on the motivation, and the impact, of these cases. The southern challenge of the voting rights act wasn't motivated by concerns of federal overreach, or a drive to introduce evidence-based decision-making into politics.