# From the SCOTUS thread in P&E **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [November 9, 2026, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/from-the-scotus-thread-in-p-e/1034722 "2026-11-09T01:23:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 3
**Author:** ![ParallelLines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/parallellines/32/3575_2.png) [@ParallelLines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ParallelLines)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2026, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/from-the-scotus-thread-in-p-e/1034722/3 "2026-11-09T02:07:28Z")
@DrDeth did take the moderation to heart and provided a better example of the same latter on, to his credit: > [@New plot for Supreme Court - is it possible](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-plot-for-supreme-court-is-it-possible/1034717/21): > > The Judiciary Act of 1869 fixed the number of Justices at nine and no subsequent change to the number of Justices has occurred. Where the original link was to a _general_ SCOTUS FAQ with 15 (!) different possible questions. Yes, one of which was a very short section, quoted in my example above by @DrDeth. It is absolutely better when drawing on a general source to quote the specifics. If the cite/link had been _only_ about the history and legal backing of the number of justices, it would have been better as an un-excerpted link, but it’s _generally_ better to give your fellow posters an idea of what the cite says rather than click to get it all. Especially when it’s a general, rather than a specific site. It’s also serves a _good purpose_, because you have a chance to make sure your cite says **what you think it does** , which is the concern @What_Exit explicitly addressed. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/from-the-scotus-thread-in-p-e/1034722)._