I know some people are focusing on that, and I get it and don't like it, but I'm not focusing on it because it's one too many layers of speculation for me — with other reasonable explanations. For example, it's also possible that some justices were out of town because no in-person days were expected until March 15 and it felt more fair n…
I know some people are focusing on that, and I get it and don't like it, but I'm not focusing on it because it's one too many layers of speculation for me — with other reasonable explanations. For example, it's also possible that some justices were out of town because no in-person days were expected until March 15 and it felt more fair not to have some be "absent" because of that for the issuance of this opinion.
If I wanted to be annoyed with it, I definitely could, to be clear; I'm just trying assess why — and I can't be sure enough to say why.
Of course, the opinion(s) are what matter the most.
They were there on Friday for their conference and I'm unsure why they couldn't release it then. If they have some special reason, and don't want people to wonder why they are doing it this way (which isn't normal & is going to look to some people like they want to avoid showing up to release an unpleasant opinion) they could say. They don't want to probably but oh well. Thanks for explaining your mindset. That's mine.
ETA: If it is not the insurrection case, never mind. You never know with these people.
Thanks for what you do. I'm a new subscriber. I'm here for your good legal reporting which just has to include maintaining balance. Thanks. I appreciate it.
I know some people are focusing on that, and I get it and don't like it, but I'm not focusing on it because it's one too many layers of speculation for me — with other reasonable explanations. For example, it's also possible that some justices were out of town because no in-person days were expected until March 15 and it felt more fair not to have some be "absent" because of that for the issuance of this opinion.
If I wanted to be annoyed with it, I definitely could, to be clear; I'm just trying assess why — and I can't be sure enough to say why.
Of course, the opinion(s) are what matter the most.
They were there on Friday for their conference and I'm unsure why they couldn't release it then. If they have some special reason, and don't want people to wonder why they are doing it this way (which isn't normal & is going to look to some people like they want to avoid showing up to release an unpleasant opinion) they could say. They don't want to probably but oh well. Thanks for explaining your mindset. That's mine.
ETA: If it is not the insurrection case, never mind. You never know with these people.
Thanks for what you do. I'm a new subscriber. I'm here for your good legal reporting which just has to include maintaining balance. Thanks. I appreciate it.