Agreed, but when creating something meant to compel a Senate staff lawyer to prepare serious questions, the follow-up article would not carry the weight without such support. I'll follow up on this one with just such a story in a week or two.
I am curious about what you think about that story regarding the headnote in Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific.
BTW, you are free to redub me Free Republic's Quixotic Bastard for All Seasons at your earliest whim. ;-)
It's just not the way the law works, or at least is supposed to work.
Opinions from the Court are supposed to mean something. That something is pretty narrowly defined.
The Court itself could set the matter straight, but it won't. It has no press secretary as far as I know (leaving aside the question of whether that would be a good idea).
Funny sobriquet. I've been one of those at times, though not on FR. Now I know what to call it. It's a tough job, isn't it? But then somebody has to do it. Without dreaming the impossible, nightmares become possible. Good luck.