But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.
How can anyone of those bags of douche complain after Nancy Pisslosi said the exact same thing!!!!!!!!!!!!
I always thought that the individual justices' clerks and interns did the actual reading of the cases and summarized them by writing briefs for the justices to read.
That's kind of how the lawyers I know have explained it to me, but they are all mostly juvie court lawyers.
Congress didn't, why should the Supremes? In less flippant terms, though, the Justices are not obliged to slog through it, only the parts that are actually relevant to the issue in front of them, and under our adversarial litigation system, it is the job of the parties and any allowed amicus curiae to brief the legal issues so that detailed reading of the entire waste of trees by the Justices is not required.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|