
Final Word on U.S. Law Isn’t: Supreme Court Keeps Editing - jamesbritt
http://nytimes.com/2014/05/25/us/final-word-on-us-law-isnt-supreme-court-keeps-editing.html?src=twr&_r=1
======
zokier
The article does not imho agree with the title. By it's own admittance, the
"final word" is indeed final:

> There are two exceptions to the general practice of quietly slipping changes
> into opinions. One happens only after the decisions are published in final
> form

Maybe the bigger problem is that people are relying "prerelase" documents to
be authoritative, when they actually aren't.

~~~
simonh
If the final word doesn't come out until 5 years after the decision is
announced, what are they supposed to do in the interim? Especially considering
that these opinions are used in colleges teaching law and are referenced in
textbooks. They can't just pretend the opinion didn't happen for 5 years.

~~~
larrys
"Especially considering that these opinions are used in colleges teaching law
and are referenced in textbooks."

Somewhat similar to what happens in medicine though or other disciplines. You
learn something in school which isn't always the final say on the subject
matter.

Law is something that requires you to be constantly up to date.

~~~
bradleyjg
It'd be easier to keep up to date if changes were flagged instead of a secret
process that requires you to manually compare printed books with pdfs.

------
Glyptodon
This seems like a disgrace. Someone should teach them Git.

~~~
rwmj
I don't know why you were downvoted. Version control would be hugely useful
for all lawmakers -- those in parliament/senates too.

The UK Parliament actually has a slightly crazy system of using different
coloured marker pens to indicate different revisions at different stages (1st
reading, 2nd reading, Commons, Lords etc.). They need version control.

~~~
DennisP
I'm friends with a former state senator, and suggested this to her. She
laughed at me and said that's the last thing lawmakers want. They like being
able to sneak little bits into bills when no one's looking. She used to start
reading bills in the back, because that's where the graft would get thrown in,
usually written in some really obscure manner.

So to get this to happen I think we would first need some kind of version
control so easy and compelling that the general public starts using it
everywhere, and then maybe we can build enough public pressure to make the
legislators use it.

(On the other hand I don't see any reason why judges would be against it for
court decisions.)

~~~
rwmj
Making law _is_ programming. The CPU is a bit fuzzy, but that's about the only
difference. We should absolutely make lawmakers use and learn real version
control.

------
dragontamer
So.... its hard to be a lawyer.

The Supreme Court has always reversed earlier rulings and changed its opinion
with the times. In 1928 (Olmstead v. United States), the Supreme Court ruled
that wiretaps did NOT violate the 4th and 5th Amendment. (The argument was
that you didn't own the telephone lines, so there was no expectation of
privacy). This was more or less confirmed in Goldman v. United States (1942).

It wasn't until 1967 (Katz v. United States) that Wiretaps were declared
"search" that required a warrant.

None of these changes were due to Congressional Action. They were all due to
Supreme Court cases. And this is why Lawyers are paid a lot of bucks...
because its their job to keep up with not only Congressional law, but with
Supreme Court rulings (interpretations of law), which can change on the whims
of the Supreme Court Justices.

~~~
contravert
I've always seen the Supreme Court as a farce. The very fact that laws are
decided upon without consensus is troubling to think about. If these justices
are the most authoritative judges of constitutional matters and disagree with
each other on fundamental rulings shows the subjectivity and flaws of the
legal system.

The law is not a democracy, and a 5-4 ruling is the greatest absurdity of this
system. Presumably, if another political party was in power for an
appointment, the decision may be the exact opposite. If the constitution is so
treasured as a framework constraining the powers of the state and guarding the
rights of citizens, why is consensus not the only standard for which decisions
are made on constitutional matters?

~~~
dragontamer

        If the constitution is so treasured as a framework constraining the powers of the state and guarding the rights of citizens, why is consensus not the only standard for which decisions are made on constitutional matters?
    

The Supreme Court gains its powers from the Constitution. Its like you've
never even read the Constitution. Article III. If you don't like the Supreme
Court, then you don't like the Constitution. Period.

No offense, but your words sound hugely ignorant of the meaning of the word
"Constitution", or the theory of law under which it works.

------
mullingitover
We should be demanding that modern revision control tools are put in place
everywhere they're appropriate. This case is a poster child for it, but even
more so it should be standard in the legislative process to have commit
authors and changelogs. Every citizen should have ridiculously easy access to
the current laws and regulations they are bound by, along with who wrote those
laws and who lobbied/campaign funded them to write those laws. This is
especially true given the fact that ignorance of the law is not an acceptable
excuse for breaking it.

------
lukejduncan
Is it really that difficult to get plain text versions and diff them?

~~~
Angostura
The article suggests that the final versions are only available in hardback
printed form.

~~~
rayiner
The bound volumes are the authoritative reference in case of discrepancies
between the digital and bound versions, but digital versions are available in
PDF form:
[http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes.aspx](http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes.aspx).

~~~
Angostura
The article says that in several instances the older, I corrected version of
decisions are on the Web site, so I presume that these are the files that are
the problematic ones.

------
graedus
Well, now I'm curious. I hope some attentive lawyers are working on a
"revision log".

