Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSupremes Rely On Facts That 'Wouldn't Pass Muster In A High School Paper'
(NYT) WASHINGTON The Supreme Court received more than 80 friend-of-the-court briefs in the Hobby Lobby case. Most of these filings, also called amicus briefs, were dull and repetitive recitations of familiar legal arguments.
Others stood out. They presented fresh, factual information that put the case in a broader context.
The justices are hungry for such data. Their opinions are increasingly studded with citations of facts they learned from amicus briefs.
But this is a perilous trend, said Allison Orr Larsen, a law professor at the College of William and Mary.
The court is inundated with 11th-hour, untested, advocacy-motivated claims of factual expertise, she wrote in an article to be published in The Virginia Law Review. .........................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/us/politics/the-dubious-sources-of-some-supreme-court-facts.html
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 990 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (7)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Supremes Rely On Facts That 'Wouldn't Pass Muster In A High School Paper' (Original Post)
marmar
Sep 2014
OP
It was Dionne Warwick who did "I say a little Prayer for you", not the Supremes.....
still_one
Sep 2014
#1
still_one
(92,433 posts)1. It was Dionne Warwick who did "I say a little Prayer for you", not the Supremes.....
Sorry, couldn't resist
procon
(15,805 posts)2. But... but...
If it's on the internet, it must be true... right?
That's the biggest problem I have with discussing ANYTHING with right wingers, if they can see it on the internet, by God, it's a fact. And if the info is repeated on lots of conservative websites, that's pure gold in validating their POV. It must be epidemic.
underpants
(182,922 posts)3. Sad, this SCOTUS can be (and was) Astroturfed