Yesterday, the New York Times ran an article by Adam Liptak on the increasingly suspect “facts” that the Supreme Court cites in some of its opinions. Whether penned by the justices themselves or the little twits who actually do the heavy lifting on the opinion-writing, opinions from the Court have become a veritable wasteland of dubious figures, outlandish claims, and hardcore pornography. Or, rather, just the first two.
Sex-crazed Stephen Breyer, for instance, is said to have relied on a discontinued blog for a statistic related to public libraries. The blog, wackyliberryfacts.blogspot.com, has two posts since 2008 and both have to do with Michael Hutchence’s death. A good read, if maybe a bit too reliant on incorrect lyrics from Suicide Blonde.
On the right side of the Court (and history…?), coozehound Samuel Alito is said to have cited an unreliable fact about background checks done by employers in a 2011 opinion. The fact? That 47 percent of Americans can’t come up with Joe Biden’s name when asked who our Vice President is. Which, as far as I can tell, is a totally true fact! But its connection to background checks is tenuous, if not downright nonexistent.
Why Experience Still Matters In An AI-Driven Legal Industry
A conversation with Trustpoint.One CEO Christopher Gallagher.
Given the fact that our nation’s entire legal edifice threatens to crumble under the weight of a thousand erroneous internet “facts,” we’ve decided to help the Court out. Here are five ways the court can get around the shoddy fact-checking in judicial opinions.
1. More Appeals to Authority: “Jane says that 39% of women like it when their bosses hit on them.” Notice how we’ve just shifted the burden from the Court to “Jane.” This is effective, says Bob.
2. Allegories: Western thought is lousy with analogies. People are used to them. Eastern-style allegories are the hypotheticals of the future: “When asked how to secure affordable health coverage for the American people, the scorpion replied, ‘That is not in my nature.’ ”
Managing Partners are Navigating the AI Inflection Point.
New executive research from Ari Kaplan explores how law firm leaders are responding to changing client expectations, evolving economics, talent transformation, and AI governance.
3. Multivariable equations: “Rp = FUBU + Rs x τ. In the instant case, we see that both Rs (rim speed) and Torque were low, meaning that racial profiling played a negligible role in respondent’s actions.” People love math.
4. Micro-transactions: Tell court watchers that the facts used in the opinion are just estimates but they can see the full methodology by clicking on a link and paying a small fee. Of course, nobody will do that, and the estimate will become fact.
5. Because I Said So: It’s the Supreme Court, why do they need facts? “Five of us will tell you what facts are relevant, you don’t like it, change the law. Oh, you tried that? Well, change the Constitution.”
Seeking Facts, Justices Settle for What Briefs Tell Them [New York Times]