There was a business study showing that the exact same text is received more favorably when spoken/heard than when written/read. Something about the act of speaking it and compelling an audience is qualitatively different, beyond a special asterisk labeling “IMPORTANT OPINION.”
-
-
Right, which is the reason why the justices do it. But the media coverage is different, I think. Most lay people didn’t actually listen to her reading it. (I didn’t!) But perhaps even when people know that something was spoken, there is an impact?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DrMamaEsq @JenniferMRomig and
I agree that orality matters here. Probably the leading discussion is Guinier “Demosprudence through dissent” https://harvardlawreview.org/2008/11/demosprudence-through-dissent/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RichardMRe @DrMamaEsq and
And now for some anecdote: I can immediately think of spoken dissents that impressed me in part because of the conviction I could hear in the speaker’s voice. And I think that can come across in a radio or podcast snippet, for example.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @RichardMRe @DrMamaEsq and
I guess I'm quirkily focused on what is written in the opinions. For the majority, that's the binding language; for the dissent, that's what so many will read. They get all the opportunity to express passion, outrage, fury, & conviction in unlimited words in the US Reports. etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @OrinKerr @RichardMRe and
Taking that logic to an extreme end, oral arguments should be closed sessions, no reporters or observers allowed.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner @RichardMRe and
I think taking the logic to an extreme end indicates that they shouldn't read summaries of majority opinions, either -- which I think they shouldn't.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @OrinKerr @RichardMRe and
By summaries, do you mean news reports or the syllabus or both?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner @OrinKerr and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @chrisgeidner @RichardMRe and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Agreed, but that audio lasts. It exists. Just listened to RBG’s Ledbetter dissent in the documentary.
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.