Talk:Eldred v. Ashcroft
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. |
This article is ripe for some serious pruning. Since the Court has ruled, most of this information is now unnecessary. (Some of it was already. For example, the change from Reno to Ashcroft.)
- Go for it! --Eloquence 14:48 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)
- The Reno thing is useful, as are the district and appeals court opinions. Don't take them out. Though you could move more of the substance of the article to the front, and leave that stuff lower down in a sort of "blow by blow" section. In general, don't remove information-- just push it farther down in the article. Dachshund
I noticed an inconsistancy in the use of terms, and I don't know which one is correct. In the District Court section, the article refers to the principle of "public trust", but in the Court of Appeals section, the article uses the term "public interest." They seem to be referring to the same thing. adam
I'm not sure what Free Culture was supposed to point to, but it leads to a disambig page now. Book, subculture or website, guys? IMFromKathlene 04:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
