4 ms·

Just be sure to double-check any “facts” they cite before taking them as true. Because they, uh, kinda don’t. Check them, that is.

Matticus_Rex 2y ago
By the time you see a published SCOTUS decision clerks have definitely checked all citations. The problem is that occasionally the source or interpretation is questionable/contentious.
- vundercind 2y ago
  Clerks have much more limited time than one might think, and research is basically an added-on function that they never staffed for once courts started engaging in it. “Facts” from amicus briefs make it in all the time without an apparent attempt at verification. Perhaps they do check and then ignore their findings, but why bother with that?
- aaronbrethorst 2y ago
  Except when they haven't: https://newrepublic.com/article/183285/supreme-court-chevron-gorsuch-nitrous-oxide https://newrepublic.com/article/183285/supreme-court-chevron... There's something very funny and simultaneously chilling about a majority opinion authored by Gorsuch[1] who has said “[o]nly the written word is the law” [1] totally mixing up laughing gas and a toxic pollutant emitted by cars. [1] I know the clerks actually write them, HN pedants. [2] https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/06/symposium-the-triumph-of-textualism-only-the-written-word-is-the-law/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/06/symposium-the-triumph-of-...
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
throwup238 2y ago
Double check everything: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/06/28/supreme-court-corrects-epa-opinion-after-gorsuch-confuses-laughing-gas-with-air-pollutant/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/06/28/supreme... The Justices have made some bone headed mistakes, especially this last crop.
cvoss 2y ago
You may be referring to the court's (and other appellate courts') long-standing practice of not second guessing a trial court's finding of what did or didn't happen, unless a "clear error" is demonstrated to have been committed by the trial court. SCOTUS decisions and opinions, therefore, should not be construed as to concur with the trial court about what actually happened. They take it as granted that those things occurred, and provide the best legal resolution they can under those assumptions. The cases they hear aren't about determining "who did what". That's done and settled usually. They are about "what now?"
- vundercind 2y ago
  I mean that they make errors in statement of fact supporting their rulings and, worse, incorporate those facts into their ruling in material ways. Say the Supreme Court majority writes, as guidance to lower courts, that interpretation of a certain amendment should feature consideration of laws enacted early in the country’s history, and before its founding. They further write that for the specific question before them, the total absence of similar laws in that history means they must rule a certain law unconstitutional. Further suppose they were simply factually incorrect to the point that such laws were in fact common and are very easy to find, if you look like at all. Now what? If you apply their guidance on how to analyze these questions, you’d have to reverse their ruling on laws similar to the one they struck down, should they come before you. But they ruled that specific one unconstitutional… but their ruling was contrary to the guidance they gave. So we end up tied in a bit of a knot. Had these facts been argued rather than pulled out of some damn amicus brief without examination, perhaps the government would have presented a large pile of examples to rebut the simply-false claim that no similar laws existed in the country’s early history. But the court injected these “facts” as a key part of their reasoning when writing their decision, instead. Would it have changed the outcome? No. Would it, perhaps, have made it too embarrassing even for these clowns, to include that particular bit in their ruling? Maybe! And future lower court cases might take a different course, as a result. [EDIT] The take-away for the casual reader of Supreme Court opinions, then, is that if they write something like "no examples of such laws exist until [YEAR]" don't be surprised if that turns out to be hilariously wrong. A "fact" making it into a Supreme Court opinion is not a strong indication the fact is... an actual fact. Their opinions are far less well-researched than one might suppose, emphasis on far, it's not that they're just imperfect like any people, their fact checking is outright poor by any standards.

Matticus_Rex 2y ago

By the time you see a published SCOTUS decision clerks have definitely checked all citations. The problem is that occasionally the source or interpretation is questionable/contentious.

vundercind 2y ago
Clerks have much more limited time than one might think, and research is basically an added-on function that they never staffed for once courts started engaging in it. “Facts” from amicus briefs make it in all the time without an apparent attempt at verification. Perhaps they do check and then ignore their findings, but why bother with that?
aaronbrethorst 2y ago
Except when they haven't: https://newrepublic.com/article/183285/supreme-court-chevron-gorsuch-nitrous-oxide https://newrepublic.com/article/183285/supreme-court-chevron... There's something very funny and simultaneously chilling about a majority opinion authored by Gorsuch[1] who has said “[o]nly the written word is the law” [1] totally mixing up laughing gas and a toxic pollutant emitted by cars. [1] I know the clerks actually write them, HN pedants. [2] https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/06/symposium-the-triumph-of-textualism-only-the-written-word-is-the-law/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/06/symposium-the-triumph-of-...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

throwup238 2y ago

Double check everything: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/06/28/supreme-court-corrects-epa-opinion-after-gorsuch-confuses-laughing-gas-with-air-pollutant/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/06/28/supreme... The Justices have made some bone headed mistakes, especially this last crop.

cvoss 2y ago

You may be referring to the court's (and other appellate courts') long-standing practice of not second guessing a trial court's finding of what did or didn't happen, unless a "clear error" is demonstrated to have been committed by the trial court. SCOTUS decisions and opinions, therefore, should not be construed as to concur with the trial court about what actually happened. They take it as granted that those things occurred, and provide the best legal resolution they can under those assumptions. The cases they hear aren't about determining "who did what". That's done and settled usually. They are about "what now?"

vundercind 2y ago
I mean that they make errors in statement of fact supporting their rulings and, worse, incorporate those facts into their ruling in material ways. Say the Supreme Court majority writes, as guidance to lower courts, that interpretation of a certain amendment should feature consideration of laws enacted early in the country’s history, and before its founding. They further write that for the specific question before them, the total absence of similar laws in that history means they must rule a certain law unconstitutional. Further suppose they were simply factually incorrect to the point that such laws were in fact common and are very easy to find, if you look like at all. Now what? If you apply their guidance on how to analyze these questions, you’d have to reverse their ruling on laws similar to the one they struck down, should they come before you. But they ruled that specific one unconstitutional… but their ruling was contrary to the guidance they gave. So we end up tied in a bit of a knot. Had these facts been argued rather than pulled out of some damn amicus brief without examination, perhaps the government would have presented a large pile of examples to rebut the simply-false claim that no similar laws existed in the country’s early history. But the court injected these “facts” as a key part of their reasoning when writing their decision, instead. Would it have changed the outcome? No. Would it, perhaps, have made it too embarrassing even for these clowns, to include that particular bit in their ruling? Maybe! And future lower court cases might take a different course, as a result. [EDIT] The take-away for the casual reader of Supreme Court opinions, then, is that if they write something like "no examples of such laws exist until [YEAR]" don't be surprised if that turns out to be hilariously wrong. A "fact" making it into a Supreme Court opinion is not a strong indication the fact is... an actual fact. Their opinions are far less well-researched than one might suppose, emphasis on far, it's not that they're just imperfect like any people, their fact checking is outright poor by any standards.