The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Judicial opinions should be obtuse, not clear.
| Odious Bright Brunch Nibblets | 03/21/18 |
| Vivacious Foreskin | 03/21/18 |
| Odious Bright Brunch Nibblets | 03/21/18 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: March 21st, 2018 9:33 PM Author: Odious Bright Brunch Nibblets As with any priestly exercise, the point is obfuscation, not clarity. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3925126&forum_id=2#35657330) |
Date: March 21st, 2018 9:36 PM Author: Vivacious Foreskin (United States Supreme Court Justices) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3925126&forum_id=2#35657348) |
 |
Date: March 21st, 2018 9:42 PM Author: Odious Bright Brunch Nibblets Proles says Kagan is a good writer because she is "clear" and "punchy." Quite the opposite. That makes her writing SPS. Also this device:
"What matters is the crux—-or, in legal-speak, the gravamen—-of the plaintiff’s complaint, setting aside any attempts at artful pleading."
"(Welcome to—-and apologies for—-the acronymic world of federal legislation.)"
"We begin, as always, with the statutory language at issue, which (at risk of repetition) compels exhaustion when..."
|