1/ I think some Justices do it simply because it gets media coverage. RBG in particular seems to be very attuned to whether Congress is listening to her dissents in statutory cases.
By summaries, do you mean news reports or the syllabus or both?
-
-
Sorry, I meant the summaries of their majority opinions that the Justices read in open court. Perhaps it made sense pre-Internet, but these days it seems to just mean that they keep everyone waiting online for the opinion while they read a summary to 100 people.
-
Oh, well. I’d rather have oral arguments live-streamed, in which case, decisions could be as well. (I imagine you’d dislike that greatly.)
-
I have mixed views of livestreaming, but if everyone could watch live, I wouldn't dislike the decision readings, at least beyond concerns about them playing to the public. (But my original concern was just about press coverage, not what the Justices do.)
-
Right, and I think press coverage is trying to share our genuine view of why justices read dissents. I think RBG sees it as a lever she can pull once a term or so to make a point. It’s her bell-ringing, and others do so as well (though less often).
-
So in effect, the Justices wishing to influence future public debate about that issue becomes the story, making it newsworthy. Interesting. I suppose that's right, with the caveat that I don't think that's a good thing. http://volokh.com/posts/1193284491.shtml …
-
I mean, that’s often what dissents aim to do! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I’m not sure we disagree all that much; I think you just want a law prof press, whereas I think the reality is that people care about why justices like Scalia or Ginsburg are dissenting, so capturing that is valuable.
-
We heard and read about Scalia’s Lawrence dissent for a dozen years. He read it from the bench.pic.twitter.com/eQL3AAC4ND
-
True, but I'm skeptical that we wouldn't have heard or read about it if he hadn't read part of it from the bench.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
In any event, neither of those are prepared by the justices, so they’re irrelevant to this discussion. I think reading a dissent matters b/c the justices have rare, formal outlets for sharing their views with the world. This is one.
-
I'm not sure they have only rare formal outlets for sharing their views with the world about the Court's cases, though, in that they get unlimited words to write anything they want, that anyone can then read. Shouldn't obviously matter if it's written or oral, at least to me.
-
Agreed, but that audio lasts. It exists. Just listened to RBG’s Ledbetter dissent in the documentary.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.