Wisconsin law professor and blogger Ann Althouse was on Wisconsin Public Radio this morning with Matt Rothschild from the Progressive Magazine to discuss weekly political events. She
spewed a few of the pro-Bush talking points circulating the blogosphere on the Judge Anna Diggs Taylor decision that found the Bush NSA spying program unconstitutional.
Althouse complained the decision was "sloppily" written.
Althouse whined that the decision was not "scholarly" enough.
The Washington Post editorial board also serves up the same dish of pettiness.
I have one thing to say about judicial opinions that contain "sloppy" writing or lack the "scholarly" treatment of an issue that would appease law professors.
I say big deal.
I've read more than a few legal decisions addressing constitutional questions with a lot of staying power that deserved additional editing sessions and finer reasoning. Did the flawed writing or lack of depth provided in the written decision matter in that case? No. These things only matter for the next case as the next court tries to use that decision to resolve the case it has.
The most important thing about any determination of a court is whether it is right.
Sloppy writing. Not scholarly. Big deal.
Crossposted at my blog: DICTA.