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?
-
-
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 -
-
-
Which is why I think the media coverage is warranted.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.