3 ms·

It is not the reader's fault if the article is unreadable in the first place. Not to mention that asking help to explain a text is extremely common. I can read

by rs186 10mo ago

It is not the reader's fault if the article is unreadable in the first place. Not to mention that asking help to explain a text is extremely common. I can read English, but I have never read a US supreme court ruling. There are much better ways for me to understand those rulings to me as a non-lawyer.

tyre 10mo ago
Many SCOTUS opinions, especially the major ones, are very readable! The justices and clerks are excellent writers. The most publicly notable cases (on things like abortion, gerrymandering, gun control, etc.) aren’t so tied down in complex precedent or laws the average person is unfamiliar with. Although, even some of those (like, for me, issues around Native American sovereignty or maritime law) are quite readable as well.
turtlesdown11 10mo ago
> I can read English, but I have never read a US supreme court ruling. There are much better ways for me to understand those rulings to me as a non-lawyer. Having admitted to never having read a SCOTUS ruling, how can you then proclaim there are better ways for you to understand? How could you possibly make that assertion if you've never read a SCOTUS ruling?
- jcranmer 10mo ago
  > Having admitted to never having read a SCOTUS ruling, how can you then proclaim there are better ways for you to understand? How could you possibly make that assertion if you've never read a SCOTUS ruling? A SCOTUS ruling is a primary source, and there's a pretty good universal rule that primary sources can be difficult to properly digest if you don't fully have the context of the source; for most people, reading a secondary source or a tertiary source will be a superior vehicle than the primary source for understanding. Although that said, some secondary and tertiary sources do end up being just utter garbage (a standard example is the university press release for any scientific paper--the actual merits of that paper is generally mangled to hell.)
  - turtlesdown11 10mo ago
    > pretty good universal rule that primary sources can be difficult to properly digest if you don't fully have the context of the source I guess the last refuge of the ignorant is denial
- rs186 10mo ago
  SCOTUS ruling: 213 page PDF. News article: 500 words that provide everything I need to know. Unless I am actually very interested in the ruling, this seems an easy choice. Because I just wouldn't open that PDF file at all.

by rs186 10mo ago

tyre 10mo ago

Many SCOTUS opinions, especially the major ones, are very readable! The justices and clerks are excellent writers. The most publicly notable cases (on things like abortion, gerrymandering, gun control, etc.) aren’t so tied down in complex precedent or laws the average person is unfamiliar with. Although, even some of those (like, for me, issues around Native American sovereignty or maritime law) are quite readable as well.

turtlesdown11 10mo ago

> I can read English, but I have never read a US supreme court ruling. There are much better ways for me to understand those rulings to me as a non-lawyer. Having admitted to never having read a SCOTUS ruling, how can you then proclaim there are better ways for you to understand? How could you possibly make that assertion if you've never read a SCOTUS ruling?

jcranmer 10mo ago
> Having admitted to never having read a SCOTUS ruling, how can you then proclaim there are better ways for you to understand? How could you possibly make that assertion if you've never read a SCOTUS ruling? A SCOTUS ruling is a primary source, and there's a pretty good universal rule that primary sources can be difficult to properly digest if you don't fully have the context of the source; for most people, reading a secondary source or a tertiary source will be a superior vehicle than the primary source for understanding. Although that said, some secondary and tertiary sources do end up being just utter garbage (a standard example is the university press release for any scientific paper--the actual merits of that paper is generally mangled to hell.)
- turtlesdown11 10mo ago
  > pretty good universal rule that primary sources can be difficult to properly digest if you don't fully have the context of the source I guess the last refuge of the ignorant is denial
rs186 10mo ago
SCOTUS ruling: 213 page PDF. News article: 500 words that provide everything I need to know. Unless I am actually very interested in the ruling, this seems an easy choice. Because I just wouldn't open that PDF file at all.