One thing that really gets on my nerves is the way Supreme Court cases are named. Take for example the case of Noel Canning v. NRLB – you can’t just call it Canning because there’s a company in Washington called “Noel Canning” that has nothing to do with the case.
Similarly, I’ve seen some people trying to abbreviate the Chevron case as Loper, which just doesn’t make sense. The company involved is “Loper Bright Enterprises” – I could maybe accept “Loper Bright” as a shorter version.
But really, I wish they had named the case Relentless instead. “Relentless” has 11 characters, while “Loper Bright” has 12. Just think of all the wasted characters over the course of this precedent!
And please, don’t call me Shirley.
