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.
-
-
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 @RichardMRe and
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.)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner @RichardMRe and
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.)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @OrinKerr @RichardMRe and
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).
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @chrisgeidner @RichardMRe and
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 …
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
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.
-
-
Replying to @chrisgeidner @OrinKerr and
We heard and read about Scalia’s Lawrence dissent for a dozen years. He read it from the bench.pic.twitter.com/eQL3AAC4ND
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner @RichardMRe and
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 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 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.