The oral arguments are an excellent listen:
-https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx (live)
-https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio/2... (recorded)
-https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx (live)
-https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio/2... (recorded)
Are news outlets not allowed to include links to actual source material or something? Why is it that I almost always find these links in HN comments rather than the article itself? It's really annoying and I genuinely don't understand why this is so common, just like not linking to the actual studies for "science" news. To me it just seems sneaky, like if the article is correct, why not link the source so I can verify that myself? I know most people won't do that, but it feels like including the source when once exists and is already publicly available should be a hard requirement for any piece of journalism.
I think many of these outlets must have a no-external-linking policy. But it really hurts their credibility and even their readability IMO.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Okay. So we're talking about race as a determining factor in admission to Harvard.
MR. WAXMAN [representing Harvard]: Race in some -- for some highly qualified applicants can be the determinative factor...