[lelandfe]

Agreed! And the typography is perfect. I've enjoyed bypassing all the angles and bias of coverage and just reading the majority decision PDFs in full. As a layperson the implications of phrases do escape me, though. SCOTUS can get awfully terse.

[Matticus_Rex]

Late in law school, I ended up writing a study guide for a multi-day Constitutional Law seminar for non-lawyers, and found that unpacking all of the legal turns of phrase and items that would carry huge implications when read by lawyers took between 3x and 15x the space of whatever segment I was unpacking, with an average around 7.5x-8x. And according to feedback that still ended up being a bit dense for most readers. Worst volunteer gig I've ever agreed to!

[kashunstva]

> just reading the majority decision PDFs in full

The dissenting opinions are also quite enlightening because they point out weaknesses in the majority and concurring opinions that might not be apparent to those of us outside the field.

[psunavy03]

Justices deliberately write their dissents in the hope that people will read them, be persuaded, and then those will eventually become established law. Ginsburg and Scalia were masters of this.

[qingcharles]

It's actually fascinating the number of times that the dissent will later become the law after culture changes.