If you are interested in seeing what high quality legal writing looks like, I think you will find it here: http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/2011/3mer/2mer/2011-0398.mer.aa.pdf

It is the government's brief in support of the Affordable Care Act. I haven't read it yet, but the Solicitor General's office is the first string, legally speaking. They are the cream of the crop in appellate work. This brief, I suspect, has the very best arguments that can be made in support of the ACA. In a few weeks, the other side will file a brief of equal quality giving the other side. Then the SCt will probably find some reason to avoid reaching the merits of the issue, which is as it should be when litigating constitutional issues. Either way, it should be some good reading.

Interesting.

I suspect he skimmed it. A full and careful reading would be a lengthy exercise.

__________________
1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

At the time I posted the link, the only thing I had read was the cover page. From that, I could see that the brief was written by the Solicitor General's office. That's why I said that "I think" one will find it to be an example of high quality legal writing. That's what the Solicitor General's office does. They are among the very best in appellate writing and argument.

I spent a bit of time at lunch today reading the first part of the brief. So far, so good. They had a few statistical things that I didn't understand, but I read quickly, so I probably need to read that part again.

Botnst has once again managed to be condescending without offering any original, or even logical, thought.

By the way, Mr. B., the link I provided is probably the highest quality bit of information you will receive today. You're welcome.