Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA | reply to NGOwner
The syllabus is not the opinion
so why the hell are you reading and relying on it? READ THE OPINION, not the worthless non-binding summary of it. |
|
NGOwner
join:2000-11-21
Leawood, KS
| Perhaps because I don't have access to the actual opinion. This is what was posted on the Supreme Court's website in regards to this case.
Are you saying that the syllabi posted on the website bear no resemblence to the actual opinions?
Come now ... you're just trying to incite ....
[NG]Owner
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. |
|
mieses
join:2001-06-22
Beverly Hills, CA
| Not that it's relevant here, but mistakes in summaries happen. For example, the legal precedent for "corporate rights" is based on a mistake in the headnotes of Santa Clara County v. the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1886.
»www.thomhartmann.com/theft.shtml |
|
