One way to lend dramatic narrative and an element of fun to learning about Case Law is to pick out choice quotes from Judges which encapsulate the drama of the matter at hand. This is what our team intended to do with a section of the website which would offer a pull quote from one of the Judges offering an explanation as to why they ruled a certain way. This offered up the chance to humanize and make personal the drama of the court room, in addition to identifying the quirks of each of the judges. I’m unsure if this part of the website has been implemented due to time constraints, but in the above image one can see text for the landmark texts which I pulled from the “Decision” data from Joanne, then identified a section of it under 350 characters that would encapsulate the case. Some examples follow: “Brennan found that it was implicit in the history of the First Amendment that obscenity, matter that was utterly without redeeming social importance, should be restrained.” “Justice Douglas wrote the majority opinion and held the postal law unconstitutional because it required an official act (returning the reply card) as a limitation on the unfettered exercise of the addressee’s First Amendment rights.”
Down the line, if someone were able to spend the time and draw direct quotes from the courtroom, much like this website does https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/305/texas-v-johnson it would give each landmark case the attention it deserves. There is human drama in addition to all the technical text and one hallmark of our project was highlighting these elements.
Another part of our “nice to haves” that down the line would be very interesting to implement is a way to track the changing positions of Judges across time. As far as I know, there aren’t other websites that do this. But if one were able to highlight the political position of Judges across a spectrum of cases and decades it would be noteworthy. As far as charting the prevailing politics of the time it would be useful for students of law to navigate legal theory by how it applied to different law-makers “textualist vs originalist” for example. On the other hand, it might only be seen as necessary to the fine-grained scholarship that very few actively pursue.