Most amazing citations you will ever see. Forum

[jkay]

Words fail.

[thesealocust]

?

[Zugzwang]

?

[billyez]

Cool story bro.

Not seeing what's amazing here.

[CyLaw]

I'm sorry, I don't understand your point.

[jkay]

Citing your own concurring opinions as some sort of authority is the worst sort of TTT.

Three times in one paragraph is some next level shit.

[Zugzwang]

Citing your own concurring opinions as some sort of authority is the worst sort of TTT.

Are you calling him Justice TTThomas?

[thesealocust]

Citing your own concurring opinions as some sort of authority is the worst sort of TTT.

...uh

[YourCaptain]

Citing your own concurring opinions as some sort of authority is a strong sign of not caring about others' opinions.

Three times in one paragraph is some next level shit.

ftfy

[AreJay711]

I love throwing in a cite to my own work in academic writtting.

[huckster]

In academic scholarship (not sure about legal writing) authors often cite their own previous works in order to draw the reader's attention to a lengthier discussion they have already contributed to the matter. I have no idea if that is what is going on here, but it is appropriate and does happen frequently.

[nymario]

Posner and Easterbrook do it all the time. In this case, Thomas is merely drawing your attention to previous arguments that he made. Would you rather him rehash things he's already said, or do you think it's easier if he points you to a location where he's previously expounded on a point at length? It's not like he's citing it as binding precedent (he's dissenting, remember?)

[beach_terror]

Found this fail during my summer research, from Goodyear v. Brown
--ImageRemoved--

[Cogburn87]

This thread is awful.

[JamMasterJ]

This thread is awful.

[thesealocust]

This thread is awful.

[071816]

[NZA]

This thread is awful.

It's the worst thread in cite.

[Oban]

fuck the bluebook. See Id.

[SullaFelix]

Citing your own concurring opinions as some sort of authority is the worst sort of TTT.

Three times in one paragraph is some next level shit.

Although a SCOTUS justice, by definition, is "some sort of authority."

[smittytron3k]

fuck the bluebook. See Id id.

ftfy

[Black-Blue]

Found this fail during my summer research, from Goodyear v. Brown
--ImageRemoved--

I think "the 'the'" is acceptable if the 'the' is part of a technical term, so you would put another "the" in front. So maybe this is not absolutely an error.

[Cavalier]

You're an idiot. He's citing to an argument that he previously made simply because he's making that same argument again; he's clearly not citing his past decisions as binding authority. There was absolutely no reason to make this thread.

[Emma.]

Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Beer, Soft Drink, Water, Fruit Juice, Carbonic Gas, Liquor Sales Drivers, Helpers, Inside Workers, Bottlers, Warehousemen, School, Sightseeing, Charter Bus Drivers, General Promotions Employees, and Employees of Affiliated Industries, Malster, Laborers, Syrup, Yeast, Food, Vinegar, Brewery, Recycling and Miscellaneous Workers of Chicago and Vicinity, Illinois, Local Unions No. 744, Affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 280 F.3d 1133 (2002)

[nymario]

You're an idiot. He's citing to an argument that he previously made simply because he's making that same argument again; he's clearly not citing his past decisions as binding authority. There was absolutely no reason to make this thread.

Agreed. This is substantially what I said, supra, but I join your opinion in full.