Why does Foxnews.com say the decision was unanimous?

[tuopaolo]

"High court unanimously refuses to hear parents' appeal, prompting state to ask judge to transfer Terri Schiavo to its care"

We don't know that the decision to refuse to hear the appeal was unanimous. They didn't tell us who if anyone dissented.

[Island Oak]

Originally Posted by tuopaolo

"High court unanimously refuses to hear parents' appeal, prompting state to ask judge to transfer Terri Schiavo to its care"

We don't know that the decision to refuse to hear the appeal was unanimous. They didn't tell us who if anyone dissented.

By definition, a unanimous decision means not one of the Justices dissented with the decision.

[tuopaolo]

Originally Posted by Island Oak

By definition, a unanimous decision means not one of the Justices dissented with the decision.

My point is that it has never been disclosed that not one of the justices dissented. Why then are they saying it's unanimous when they don't know that it's unanimous?

[mommy]

What I heard them say was that no one has yet publicly dissented. I didn't hear them say it was unanimous. But I could have missed that.

[Richardols]

Originally Posted by tuopaolo

My point is that it has never been disclosed that not one of the justices dissented. Why then are they saying it's unanimous when they don't know that it's unanimous?

Because they know it was unanimous.

[Island Oak]

Originally Posted by tuopaolo

My point is that it has never been disclosed that not one of the justices dissented. Why then are they saying it's unanimous when they don't know that it's unanimous?

A dissent requires a declaration--and is almost always is accompanied by a written decision outlining the reasons for the dissent. While I'm sure there are Justices who are disappointed with the outcome they know is coming, they obviously did not feel there was a legally justifiable, as opposed to moral, ethical, emotional basis that allowed them to intervene.

[Joe Kelley]

In lible trial some years ago it was declared that news media are free to restate the facts to express what the media think they mean, or should mean.

[tuopaolo]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/s...889552,00.html

"There was no indication of how the individual justices voted."

Why is Fox News misleading the public by saying that the decision was "unanimous"?

Thankfully they no longer have that blurb on their web page, but who knows what damage it did.