3 ms·

Thanks for that explanation. I hadn't had time to read the whole opinion. Perhaps my statement came off too harsh. I am nothing close to a lawyer, but I found t

Thanks for that explanation. I hadn't had time to read the whole opinion. Perhaps my statement came off too harsh. I am nothing close to a lawyer, but I found the "parade of horribles" to be a little troubling. Shouldn't the Congress be the one evaluating the consequences on the law? I guess the counterargument is that those things are so horrible that we can assume that isn't what Congress meant. When reading Supreme Court opinions, I am often blown away by the well reasoned, logical arguments, that support findings I disagree with. You can disagree, but you can't say they don't have some facts and logic to stand on. If you've never read an actual Supreme Court opinion, I would highly encourage you to do do. The linked article here is just awful. It doesn't even provide the case name. The opinions are surprising easy to read, and flow pretty well. The language isn't difficult, and they can be surprising humorous. If you can make it through a C++ book, then you'll have no problem understanding the basics.

pdonis 14y ago
What always strikes me when reading Court opinions is, first, that there are well reasoned, logical arguments that support both sides; and second, that in almost every case where I've seen a marked difference in the quality of the arguments (this case is not one of them, btw--both sides' arguments seem to me to be well reasoned and logical, it basically comes down to a judgment call about interpretation and what Congress intended), the argument I've found to be stronger has been the dissenting one. In other words, it seems to me that, when push comes to shove, the Justices aren't as good at arguing for what the Court actually did, as they are at arguing for why the Court should have done something else.
- chaddeshon 14y ago
  I've noticed that as well. I think it is because whoever is writing the majority opinion has to temper the opinion to make it agreeable to a majority of the justices. Authors of minority opinions have no such restriction and can swing with full force.
  - pdonis 14y ago
    That's a good point; in fact, it's even stronger in a way, because the majority opinion is the "official" one that becomes effectively law, so it not only has to be agreeable to a majority of the justices, it has to be agreeable enough to become part of the law of the land indefinitely.

pdonis 14y ago

What always strikes me when reading Court opinions is, first, that there are well reasoned, logical arguments that support both sides; and second, that in almost every case where I've seen a marked difference in the quality of the arguments (this case is not one of them, btw--both sides' arguments seem to me to be well reasoned and logical, it basically comes down to a judgment call about interpretation and what Congress intended), the argument I've found to be stronger has been the dissenting one. In other words, it seems to me that, when push comes to shove, the Justices aren't as good at arguing for what the Court actually did, as they are at arguing for why the Court should have done something else.

chaddeshon 14y ago
I've noticed that as well. I think it is because whoever is writing the majority opinion has to temper the opinion to make it agreeable to a majority of the justices. Authors of minority opinions have no such restriction and can swing with full force.
- pdonis 14y ago
  That's a good point; in fact, it's even stronger in a way, because the majority opinion is the "official" one that becomes effectively law, so it not only has to be agreeable to a majority of the justices, it has to be agreeable enough to become part of the law of the land indefinitely.