Editing David Brooks (commentator) (section)

===Articles===
In March of 2012, [[Dan Abrams]] of [[ABC News (United States)|ABC News]], and then Brooks, were criticized by [[Lyle Denniston]] with regard to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]]'s 2010 decision in ''[[Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission]]'', where alongside the claim that Brooks had "scrambled the actual significance of what the Supreme Court has done", he goes on to state that "[t]here ''is'' a link, but it is only indirect, between the Court’s 2010 decision... and the rise of [[Super PAC]]s" [emphasis added].<ref>{{cite web | first=Lyle|last=Denniston|author-link=Lyle Denniston| date=May 7, 2012| title=Constitution Check: Did the Supreme Court give us Super PACs?| work = [[Constitution Daily]] (Blog.ConstitutionCenter.org) | url=http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2012/03/constitution-check-did-the-supreme-court-give-us-super-pacs/| access-date=January 14, 2016| archive-date=February 21, 2016| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160221005745/http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2012/03/constitution-check-did-the-supreme-court-give-us-super-pacs/| url-status=dead | location = Philadelphia, PA | publisher = National Constitution Center }}</ref> 

Writing in response to Brooks 2015 opinion in ''[[The New York Times]],'' "The New Old Liberalism", Tom Scoca of the now-defunct ''[[Gawker Media|Gawker]]'', after leveling the [[ad hominem attack]] that Brooks was "a dumb partisan hack", went on to argue that Brooks possibly "perceived facts and statistics as an opportunity for dishonest people to work mischief", and so did not use them to support his policy positions.<ref name=ScocaGawker>{{cite web|last1=Scocca |first1=Tom | date = 2015-07-14 | title=David Brooks Has Noticed Hillary Is a Soviet Dictator | work=[[Gawker.com]] | url=http://gawker.com/neutral-observer-david-brooks-has-noticed-hillary-is-a-1717779151 | access-date=August 15, 2015 | url-status=dead | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150815094043/http://gawker.com/neutral-observer-david-brooks-has-noticed-hillary-is-a-1717779151 | archive-date=August 15, 2015 | location=New York, NY | publisher=Bustle Digital Group }}</ref> [[Annie Lowrey]], responding to Brooks' opinion, "The Nature of Poverty", on May 1, 2015, in ''[[New York (magazine)|New York]]'' magazine, criticized Brooks' basis for his argument for political reform, claiming he used "some very tricksy, misleading math".<ref>{{Cite web | last=Lowery|first=Annie| authorlink=Annie Lowery|date=May 1, 2015| title=David Brooks Is Not Buying Your Excuses, Poor People| work = [[New York (magazine)|New York]]  | url=http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/05/david-brooks-is-not-buying-it-poor-people.html | access-date=September 20, 2016 }}</ref> [[Sean Illing]] of ''[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]]'' criticized the same article, claiming Brooks took arguments out of context and routinely made bold "half-right" assumptions regarding the controversial issue of poverty reform.<ref>{{Cite web | first=Sean |last = Illing | author-link = Sean Illing | date = May 1, 2015| title=Why David Brooks Shouldn't Talk About Poor People| work = [[Slate (magazine)|Slate]] | url = http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/05/david_brooks_shouldn_t_talk_about_the_poor_the_new_york_times_columnist.html | access-date=September 20, 2016}}</ref>

In 2016, Brooks' analyzed the [[U.S. Supreme Court]]'s decision in ''[[Dretke v. Haley]]'',<ref>{{cite news|first=David|last=Brooks|url=http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/opinion/the-brutalism-of-ted-cruz.html?referer=https://www.google.com/|title=The Brutalism of Ted Cruz|newspaper=[[The New York Times]]|date=January 12, 2016}}</ref><ref>''[https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1824.ZS.html Dretke v. Haley]'', 541 U.S. 386 (2004).</ref> leading [[James Taranto]] to the critique that "Brooks's treatment of this case is either deliberately deceptive or recklessly ignorant".<ref name="borking">{{cite news|first=James|last=Taranto|author-link=James Taranto|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/brooks-borks-cruz-1452628864|title=Brooks Borks Cruz|newspaper=[[The Wall Street Journal]]|date=January 12, 2016}}</ref> In a self-published blog, law professor [[Ann Althouse]] argued that in the piece, Brooks "distorts rather grotesquely" by exaggerating the character of then-Texas solicitor general [[Ted Cruz]] (who brought the case to the high court).<ref>{{cite web | first=Ann |last = Althouse | date = January 13, 2016 | title = THe best conservtive balances... | work = Althouse.Blogspot.com | url = http://althouse.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-best-conservatism-balances-support.html | access-date = January 13, 2016 }}</ref>