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 @RichardMRe and
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @OrinKerr @chrisgeidner and
I believe the opinion is now posted online just as soon as the Chief Justice announces the decision and its author. In any event, it is posted online before the oral announcement of the opinion concludes, and thus certainly before any dissenting statement is read from the bench.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Almost always. For some reason, there’s still sometimes a lag to posting of the last opinion of the day. Today, the last opinion took like 5 minutes to be posted online after we got it.
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.