Yeah I see your point. What I mean is what do they say it's based on as their legal justification
- Posts
- 8
- Comments
- 609
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 8
- Comments
- 609
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
Pluribus @lemmy.zip Episode 6 title translations confirm what Carol saw
Lemmy Shitpost @lemmy.world LockedLive reaction to ICC ruling
politics @lemmy.world Israel’s Self-Destruction: Netanyahu, the Palestinians, and the Price of Neglect
Not The Onion @lemmy.world Top Members of Far-right Swedish Party With neo-Nazi Roots Meet Israeli Minister in Knesset
196 @lemmy.blahaj.zone New Rule: Everything I don't like is antisemitic
196 @lemmy.blahaj.zone Geopolitical rule
Trippin' Through Time @lemmy.ca And some morphine to balance your humors
Lemmy Shitpost @lemmy.world And for the love of god don't let him near your flowerbed


You should try to read one! Skim it, I mean.
I haven't read this opinion specifically (and some of this probably won't apply), but generally:
They explain all of the relevant procedural stuff in detail, and even justifying how things are being handled, with citations. Then the basics about what happened, the arguments on each side. Discuss the relevant laws and relevant edge cases. They will talk about new submissions to the court, and basically tell the story of what happened legally (there was a hearing on x date, defense submitted new evidence on y date etc). Then they sort through all the bullshit as judges, saying what's accurate/a good argument and what's not. Then write their actual opinion. 100 pages is pretty standard from the ones I've seen.