Tim Stanley, a Google Enterprise Search Superstar, talks about how Justia leveraged the Google Mini to power Justia’s U.S. Supreme Court Center. Tim offers some interesting insight on the power of the Google Mini, as well as Justia’s business plans.
Categories
One reply on “Interview with Tim Stanley of Justia”
One question? Who is responsible for the accuracy of the opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States.
The standard for citing opinions from the Supreme Court of the United States are the bounded editions. However, primary sources such as Justia should be considered a reliable service in providing accurate documentation relating to the opinions issued by the Supreme Court of the United States.
A sample case will suffice. Blake v. McClung, 172 U.S. 239, 1898. In this case, at pages 256 – 257, it is stated as:
“. . . So a state may, by rule uniform in its operation as to citizens of the several states, require residence within its limits for a given time before a citizen of another state, who becomes a resident thereof, shall exercise the right of suffrage or become eligible to office. It has never been supposed that regulations of that character materially interfered with the enjoyment by citizens of each State of the privileges and immunities secured by the Constitution to citizens of the several states. The Constitution forbids only such legislation affecting citizens of the respective states as will substantially or practically put a citizen of one state in a condition of alienage when he is within or when he removes to another state, or when asserting in another state the rights that commonly appertain to those who are part of the political community known as the the United States, by and for whom the government of the Union was ordained and established.”
However, in the bounded edition, it is written as:
“. . . So a State may, by rule uniform in its operation as to citizens of the several States, require residence within its limits for a given time before a citizen of another State who becomes a resident thereof shall exercise the right of suffrage or become eligible to office. It has never been supposed that regulations of that character materially interfered with the enjoyment by citizens of each State of the privileges and immunities secured by the Constitution to citizens of the several States. The Constitution forbids only such legislation affecting citizens of the respective States as will substantially or practically put a citizen of one State in a condition of alienage when he is within or when he removes to another State, or when asserting in another State the rights that commonly appertain to those who are part of the political community known as the PEOPLE OF the United States, by and for whom the Government of the Union was ordained and established.”
It should be added that the case cited, read as the bounded edition, but was changed. Proof can be seen in the last sentence where the word “the” appears twice before the phrase “United States”:
“. . . The Constitution forbids only such legislation affecting citizens of the respective states as will substantially or practically put a citizen of one state in a condition of alienage when he is within or when he removes to another state, or when asserting in another state the rights that commonly appertain to those who are part of the political community known as THE THE United States, by and for whom the government of the Union was ordained and established.”
I am of the opinion that this was done intentionally. So who is responsible for the accuracy of the opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States?