I wasn't justifying it. I was explaining that Lexis, Westlaw, Justia, and other online sources are not the only sources for U.S. Supreme Court opinions.
And, respectfully, you do not need a law school to obtain a copy of the U.S. Supreme Court Reporter, although it is the most obvious location. Large county courthouses sometimes have law libraries (in the metropolitan area in which I live, I've been in at least four county courthouses that have West's Supreme Court Reporter). State bar associations generally have law libraries. Law firms have copies of the U.S. Supreme Court Reporter in hard copy or on CD-ROM (I've practiced in very large law firms - up to 900 attorneys - so I've been in firms that actually had the hard copies before they switched to CD-ROM).
I am *not* minimizing what Justia did; I am incensed at it. What Justia did is wrong and shows an attempt to influence discourse and legal review of this topic no matter that Minor was available from other sources.
And Minor was available from other sources. From Westlaw; Lexis; West's U.S. Supreme Court Reporter (in hard copy or on CD-ROM); www.findlaw.com; www.supremecourt.gov; several dozen other internet sources; the Lawyers' Edition, United States Supreme Court Reports (an alternative to West's Supreme Court Reporter - it's the L.Ed or L.Ed 2d you see in a full cite to a full U.S. Supreme Court opinion); the United States Reports (the U.S. in a full cite); and so on.
Justia was offensive because it was such a newly touted, easy to use, public, award-winning source, with a Google Mini, Google-optimized search engine. It was offensive because you don't muck around with the opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courts for political purposes. I don't care who you are.
Exactly! Some things are sacrosanct. SCOTUS law is one of em.
I know there were many other sources, I used many of them in the verification process in identifying what Justia scrubbed. The reporters were 100% a part of that.