[turtlesdown11]

> I can read English, but I have never read a US supreme court ruling. There are much better ways for me to understand those rulings to me as a non-lawyer.

Having admitted to never having read a SCOTUS ruling, how can you then proclaim there are better ways for you to understand? How could you possibly make that assertion if you've never read a SCOTUS ruling?

[rs186]

SCOTUS ruling: 213 page PDF.

News article: 500 words that provide everything I need to know.

Unless I am actually very interested in the ruling, this seems an easy choice. Because I just wouldn't open that PDF file at all.

[jcranmer]

> Having admitted to never having read a SCOTUS ruling, how can you then proclaim there are better ways for you to understand? How could you possibly make that assertion if you've never read a SCOTUS ruling?

A SCOTUS ruling is a primary source, and there's a pretty good universal rule that primary sources can be difficult to properly digest if you don't fully have the context of the source; for most people, reading a secondary source or a tertiary source will be a superior vehicle than the primary source for understanding. Although that said, some secondary and tertiary sources do end up being just utter garbage (a standard example is the university press release for any scientific paper--the actual merits of that paper is generally mangled to hell.)

[turtlesdown11]

> pretty good universal rule that primary sources can be difficult to properly digest if you don't fully have the context of the source

I guess the last refuge of the ignorant is denial