As a layperson, this story could use a LOT more context. Over-reliance on amicus briefs may be bad, but having one law professor complain and then writing a sto

As a layperson, this story could use a LOT more context. Over-reliance on amicus briefs may be bad, but having one law professor complain and then writing a story around it isn't much of a news article. Some things I think I know about this subject. 1) SCOTUS is given broad latitude on how to do their job. Like complete latitude. One justice says publicly that they looked to foreign courts for guidance in resolving matters. That sounds totally whacked to me, but what do I know? 2) If you get the impression that the justices are sitting around the laptop, surfing the internet for blogs to agree with their preconceived opinions, you missed it. Each judge has a team of clerks whose job is to stay on top of both the case law and facts of the case. Justices are notorious for working the crap out of these folks and they're expected to do their work flawlessly 3) AFAIK, the amicus briefs are never used to determine the outcome, but can be cited as supporting material. That means, by definition, that they could go away and it wouldn't change the results. So the courts aren't certifying some off-the-wall facts; they're deciding based on the law and then citing all sorts of other things like the amicus briefs in their long-form opinions. Who knows if the same decisions would be made without those briefs? It is beyond arguing about, since it's a counter-factual. All of these points should have either been discussed in the article or referred to by the article. Dear Mr. Writer. It's called context. Get you some of it. I really wish the NYT would do a little more quality control. Hell, find some old cranky guy and run some of this stuff by them. Speaking from personal experience, the internet is full of assholes who would be happy to help. It shouldn't be the case that they run with it and then get taken apart so easily. And for the record, even though I took a potshot at the writer, I do not blame them, I blame the system they have. They could easily do a better job than they're doing. It's called editing.