> Most people don't have an hour to kill, and frequently use common sense to judge egregious violations
Most people aren’t lawyers or justices. This is specialisation of labor. If it doesn’t matter enough to spend a fraction of the time reading an option that took orders of magnitude more time to produce, the lazy opinion is a hunch, nothing more.
I read 2 of the 20 pages of the dissent and the dissent in Wikipedia. And guess what, the common sense judgement was correct.
Thomas dissent involved clerical, Kafkaesque beuracratic objections while fundamentally ignoring the right of a citizen to know the law. The very notion of selling the copyright for laws and judgements to a monopoly private party is ridiculous. The other objection is the grievance that a private party can't profit off annotations. Again, quite laughable. The court can simply pay a fee to any private party that helps with annotation. There is also a ridiculous idea in there that granting a monopoly will improve the quality of annotations (through the lack of competition?!!!!) This is high school level reasoning.
Yeah, the dissents were ridiculous and not worth the time I spent reading them.
Others are free to waste their time like I did, but would advise them not to. They should simply ignore the dissent as it is ridiculous. It can help in lowering the prestige of the Supreme court, but the abortion judgement based off "states rights" already took care of that. The Supreme court sounds like a political jerk fest at this point.
At this point, I suspect I have read more than everyone else in this thread. And it was a waste, except that it helped me question Thomas's sanity.
Has anyone else read more than me - someone read all the 20 pages and all the precedents cited?!. Feel free to raise your hand. All of this detailed readings of ridiculous dissents reminds me of a joke.
A guy sees a pile of shit and steps aside and walks away.
Another guy comes along and says "Looks like shit, but can't say for sure"
Then he gets close to the shit on the sidewalk and smells it
"Smells like shit - can't be too sure though"
Then he licks it and tastes it "tastes like shit, can't be sure though"
He picks it up and takes it to a lab. The results come back - it is indeed shit.
He breathes a sigh of relief "It is shit! Thank God, I didn't step on it!"
> Has anyone else read more than me - someone read all the 20 pages and all the precedents cited?
“Stepping aside and walking away” is what most people do. You’ve taken the most cursory of looks at a complicated argument and declared as shit something with legal complexity obviously beyond your domain of expertise. Instead of curiosity you chose proud ignorance.
Like I said it smelled like shit and it is indeed shit. I don't plan on rolling around in it.
Do you have any specific objections to the summary I have stated, because honestly you haven't even read half as much as I did. Which is why the entirety of your argument is meta and content free and makes no reference to the actual dissent. You seem to be offended by ignorance, but between the 2 of us you are the one who is more ignorant and have offered no opinion on the dissent apart from hot takes about me.
The only thing you can learn from reading the dissent is that Thomas is ignorant as hell.
Or are you going for the angle that my opinion doesn't matter as long as I haven't earned a law clerkship at a prestigious place. And I should just keep on reading and reading for several years and not express an opinion on something as ridiculous as denying the residents and tax payers the ability to make a copy of the law.
Most people aren’t lawyers or justices. This is specialisation of labor. If it doesn’t matter enough to spend a fraction of the time reading an option that took orders of magnitude more time to produce, the lazy opinion is a hunch, nothing more.