4 ms·

I think a news article would be an easier read than the entire 54-page opinion. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/sec-in-house-judges-violate-right-jury

by junar 4y ago

I think a news article would be an easier read than the entire 54-page opinion. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/sec-in-house-judges-violate-right-jury-trial-appeals-court-rules-2022-05-18/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/sec-in-house-judges... This particular article also links to a copy of the opinion.

jhugo 4y ago
The opinion is very readable, and includes a summary at the top which covers some background, the issues considered, and the decision.
fastball 4y ago
Controversial opinion but I think we should all be reading way more primary sources and way fewer news articles.
- naravara 4y ago
  Unless you’re a lawyer you should be reading articles by lawyers instead of trying to come up with cockamamie interpretations on your own.
  - usrn 4y ago
    That's like arguing you shouldn't the read source for the software you use because you're not an expert.
    - naravara 4y ago
      It’s more like arguing you shouldn’t self diagnose your symptoms because you’re not a doctor. And also, someone who doesn’t know how to code isn’t going to be able to make sense of the source so that particular type of Dunning-Kruger problem is self correcting with programming in a way it’s not with law (or medicine).
      - junofan 4y ago
        Who’s self-diagnosing? It’s a legal opinion. It’s published to be read by anybody.
      - salawat 4y ago
        Ahahahaha. Says someone who hasn't run into a SpringBoot application ported almost verbatim to Python.
      - usrn 4y ago
        >as someone who doesn't know how to code You'll learn a lot by reading and it's probably easier to understand than you might think. If you don't do this other people take advantage of you. They do it a lot more than you would think.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    As a lawyer, I disagree. The judicial system depends on the faith of ordinary individuals in it. That means opinions must be written for the public to read, not only other lawyers. My view is that nothing is so complicated that you can’t explain the gist of it to my mother in law (an intellectually curious woman who nonetheless never finished her college degree). In fact if you’re in front of a jury, that’s exactly what you might have to do.
    - jancsika 4y ago
      You explaining the gist of a law and a Hacker News reading the law directly have two very different probabilities of returning a "cockamamie interpretation."
  - nullc 4y ago
    Circuit court and (especially) supreme court decisions are meant to be read. They're fairly accessible. Even an entirely lay reader will often be much better informed by simply reading the decision than reading some media description of it. The 'spin' of the decision at least has the force of law, while the spin of the media is just clickbait to generate more traffic.
colinmhayes 4y ago
The whole meat of it is on the first 2 pages. Pretty simply says the SEC violated the seventh amendment by not giving the plaintiff a jury trial

by junar 4y ago

jhugo 4y ago

The opinion is very readable, and includes a summary at the top which covers some background, the issues considered, and the decision.

fastball 4y ago

Controversial opinion but I think we should all be reading way more primary sources and way fewer news articles.

naravara 4y ago
Unless you’re a lawyer you should be reading articles by lawyers instead of trying to come up with cockamamie interpretations on your own.
- usrn 4y ago
  That's like arguing you shouldn't the read source for the software you use because you're not an expert.
  - naravara 4y ago
    It’s more like arguing you shouldn’t self diagnose your symptoms because you’re not a doctor. And also, someone who doesn’t know how to code isn’t going to be able to make sense of the source so that particular type of Dunning-Kruger problem is self correcting with programming in a way it’s not with law (or medicine).
    - junofan 4y ago
      Who’s self-diagnosing? It’s a legal opinion. It’s published to be read by anybody.
    - salawat 4y ago
      Ahahahaha. Says someone who hasn't run into a SpringBoot application ported almost verbatim to Python.
    - usrn 4y ago
      >as someone who doesn't know how to code You'll learn a lot by reading and it's probably easier to understand than you might think. If you don't do this other people take advantage of you. They do it a lot more than you would think.
- rayiner 4y ago
  As a lawyer, I disagree. The judicial system depends on the faith of ordinary individuals in it. That means opinions must be written for the public to read, not only other lawyers. My view is that nothing is so complicated that you can’t explain the gist of it to my mother in law (an intellectually curious woman who nonetheless never finished her college degree). In fact if you’re in front of a jury, that’s exactly what you might have to do.
  - jancsika 4y ago
    You explaining the gist of a law and a Hacker News reading the law directly have two very different probabilities of returning a "cockamamie interpretation."
- nullc 4y ago
  Circuit court and (especially) supreme court decisions are meant to be read. They're fairly accessible. Even an entirely lay reader will often be much better informed by simply reading the decision than reading some media description of it. The 'spin' of the decision at least has the force of law, while the spin of the media is just clickbait to generate more traffic.

colinmhayes 4y ago

The whole meat of it is on the first 2 pages. Pretty simply says the SEC violated the seventh amendment by not giving the plaintiff a jury trial