Isn’t it just a way for judges to label “this is one of my most important dissents”? I think it would work the same if we gave them each a red star they could use about 1/term.
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 -
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.