Comments on: Today’s Orders and Opinions http://www.scotusblog.com/2006/12/todays-orders-and-opinions-2/ The Supreme Court of the United States blog Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:38:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: r.friedman http://www.scotusblog.com/2006/12/todays-orders-and-opinions-2/#comment-10790 r.friedman Wed, 13 Dec 2006 02:41:34 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/todays-orders-and-opinions-2/#comment-10790 <p>Thanks Kent and Simon</p> <p>Roger Friedman</p> Thanks Kent and Simon

Roger Friedman

]]> By: Simon Dodd http://www.scotusblog.com/2006/12/todays-orders-and-opinions-2/#comment-10789 Simon Dodd Tue, 12 Dec 2006 22:08:25 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/todays-orders-and-opinions-2/#comment-10789 Roger, Per Kent, I think the opinion you're looking for can be found <a href="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/042557p.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Roger,
Per Kent, I think the opinion you’re looking for can be found here.

]]> By: Kent Scheidegger http://www.scotusblog.com/2006/12/todays-orders-and-opinions-2/#comment-10788 Kent Scheidegger Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:04:17 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/todays-orders-and-opinions-2/#comment-10788 Roger, U.S. v. Ingram, CA7 04-2592, is combined with U.S. v. Dawson, CA7 04-2557. Try searching under the latter number. Roger,

U.S. v. Ingram, CA7 04-2592, is combined with U.S. v. Dawson, CA7 04-2557. Try searching under the latter number.

]]> By: r.friedman http://www.scotusblog.com/2006/12/todays-orders-and-opinions-2/#comment-10787 r.friedman Tue, 12 Dec 2006 13:02:40 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/todays-orders-and-opinions-2/#comment-10787 <p>Does anyone have info on 06-207 Ingram v US where Kennedy and Souter voted to grant cert? Cannot find case on 7th Circuit site. Thanks!</p> <p>Roger Friedman</p> Does anyone have info on 06-207 Ingram v US where Kennedy and Souter voted to grant cert? Cannot find case on 7th Circuit site. Thanks!

Roger Friedman

]]> By: Simon Dodd http://www.scotusblog.com/2006/12/todays-orders-and-opinions-2/#comment-10786 Simon Dodd Mon, 11 Dec 2006 19:50:03 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/todays-orders-and-opinions-2/#comment-10786 Two months ago, Justice Scalia observed at the NIAF gala dinner that "[t]he press is never going to report judicial opinions accurately[,] ... [t]hey're just going to report, who is the plaintiff? Was that a nice little old lady? And who is the defendant? Was this, you know, some scuzzy guy? And who won? Was it the good guy that won or the bad guy? [T]hat's all you're going to get in a press report, and you can't blame them, you can't blame them [the media]. Because nobody would read it if you went into the details of the law that the court has to resolve." The Associated Press <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/22/AR2006102200965.html" rel="nofollow">prefaced its reporting of that remark</a> as follows: "Scalia expressed disdain for the news media and the general reading public, and suggested that together they condone inaccurate portrayals of federal judges and courts." How interesting that today, having sought to mislead readers by portraying a fairly accurate observation of the habits of the media as an undignified and unwarranted assault on the intelligence of the public, the Associated Press' <a href="http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=state&id=4842199" rel="nofollow">first report on this case</a> provides a vivid demonstration of the correctness of Scalia's observation. "The Supreme Court, in a first-of-its-kind ruling," says the AP, "concluded unanimously Monday that murder trial spectators were free to wear buttons with a picture of the victim in front of the California jury that convicted the defendant." I suppose that we can expect to see that mischaracterization wing its way around the MSM and blogosphere (although, to their credit, Bloomberg have got it precisely right), but coming from the AP, it is particularly ironic. Two months ago, Justice Scalia observed at the NIAF gala dinner that “[t]he press is never going to report judicial opinions accurately[,] … [t]hey’re just going to report, who is the plaintiff? Was that a nice little old lady? And who is the defendant? Was this, you know, some scuzzy guy? And who won? Was it the good guy that won or the bad guy? [T]hat’s all you’re going to get in a press report, and you can’t blame them, you can’t blame them [the media]. Because nobody would read it if you went into the details of the law that the court has to resolve.”

The Associated Press prefaced its reporting of that remark as follows: “Scalia expressed disdain for the news media and the general reading public, and suggested that together they condone inaccurate portrayals of federal judges and courts.”

How interesting that today, having sought to mislead readers by portraying a fairly accurate observation of the habits of the media as an undignified and unwarranted assault on the intelligence of the public, the Associated Press’ first report on this case provides a vivid demonstration of the correctness of Scalia’s observation. “The Supreme Court, in a first-of-its-kind ruling,” says the AP, “concluded unanimously Monday that murder trial spectators were free to wear buttons with a picture of the victim in front of the California jury that convicted the defendant.”

I suppose that we can expect to see that mischaracterization wing its way around the MSM and blogosphere (although, to their credit, Bloomberg have got it precisely right), but coming from the AP, it is particularly ironic.

]]>