nirantk/nli-triplets · Datasets at Hugging Face

anchor stringlengths 5 1.82k	entailment stringlengths 1 351	contradiction stringlengths 1 295	metadata dict
2 million in damages, enough to permit the estate to get a judgment and execute on the negatives.	Since there were two million damages, the estate was allowed to seek a judgment.	Because the amount of damages were so low, the estate was unable to acquire a judgment.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
This difference, of course, is required by the same ethical canons that the Court elsewhere does not wish to distort.	This difference is necessitated by ethical canons that a court somewhere else does not wish to change.	There is no difference present due to ethical canons.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
Until two years ago, it was ritual among Supreme Court-watchers to speculate that this term would be Rehnquist's last.	It was once commonplace for Supreme Court-watchers to assume this would be Rehnquist's last term.	There has never been speculation from the Supreme Court-watchers about Rehnquist's term.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
I don't see anything unfair about it.	I think it is all fair and square.	I think it is all unfair and biased.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
Some city attorneys disagree with her interpretation of evidentiary statutes when Zelon puts limits on their use of hearsay testimony.	Her interpretation of evidentiary statuses led to disagreements by some city attorneys.	Her interpretation of evidentiary statuses led to agreements by some city attorneys.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
and he was right there also but uh uh certainly um i think it depends upon how the judge handles the case	In my opinion, it depends on how the case is handled by the judge.	It doesn't matter what the judge does, the case is closed.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
Today, judges from all levels, including Chief Justices of state Supreme Courts, speak out about the need for quality legal services for poor Americans and work with us to try to respond to the problems that are being presented to the United States justice system as a whole as the number of self-represented litigants grows exponentially.	The judges all believe there should be quality legal services.	Only the Chief Justices believe there should be better legal services.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
Conservatives hope their 5-4 majority will make this the defining term of the Rehnquist court.	Conservatives are hoping that they will have the upper hand this time because of their numbers.	Conservatives do not care if they are the majority or not.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
I have the highest regard for their judicial system.	Their judicial system is worthy of high regard.	Their judicial system is not worthy of any praise.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
When an Oregon Supreme Court Justice arrived at Central Oregon's Office of Legal Aid Services Wednesday evening about 30 minutes late and with wind-blown hair, nobody thought much of it.	Nobody worries if an Oregon Supreme Court Justice shows up late.	The Oregon judge likely won't get reelected if he shows up late.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
I was a Superior Court judge in Thurston County in 1980.	In 1980, I was a judge in the Superior Court in Thurston County.	I never reached the position of judge.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
State Courts SUCK!	The State Courts are no good.	The State Courts are doing a fantastic job.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
In most of the counties surrounding Schuylkill County, the penalties given for indirect criminal contempt are much stiffer than those in Schuylkill County, Casey said.	In surrounding counties the penalties were more strict.	They found that the county was going too easy on them compared to others in their area.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
Montana lets judges order castration after just one offense.	Judges in Montana can order castration for one offense.	Montana will castrate everyone.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
Multidimensional Electronic Rulemaking	Rulemaking involves many dimensions.	Rules are made with a single dimension.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
well there is so many chances for appeal that it keep	There are numerous chances for appeal.	The system only allows one chance to appeal.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
These judgments need to be made in a consistent manner with consideration of the broader public interest in the program or activity under review.	The judgments need to consider the broader public interest.	The judgments do not need to consider the broader public interest.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
Like Williams, more than 6,000 Orange County litigants have initiated court actions on I-CAN!	I-CAN has been used by thousands of people.	I-CAN has not yet been used by the public.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
2) The disputed outcome only shows that judging fights is a subjective art.	The outcome supports the idea that judging a fight is not objective.	Being a judge for a fight is an objective art.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
We're going to get a cheque each.	None of us will fail to get a cheque.	At least one of us will not get a cheque.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
right the first appeal is automatic so that delays it for a few years just right off the bat	Even just the first appeal delays things by a few years.	The first appeal isn't automatic, it requires special paperwork to be submitted before it can be granted.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
But Judge Thornton declared in court, When these orders are entered, you don't just do whatever you damn well please and ignore them.	Judge Thornton makes declarations that are supposed to be followed.	Judge Thornton does not have any authority.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
and i the reason i like it is because they give you good law in there	There's good law in there.	I like it because there some incredibly bad law in this judgment.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
the judge decides whether or not they should hear it	It is the judge that makes the decision.	The decision of whether or not they should hear it is made by the people.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
yeah well see and there's another thing about the justice system that i don't like and there's a lot of people that tell me that that maybe my thoughts are wrong i came from California	There is something else I don't like about the justice system, but a lot of people tell me that my thinking is wrong, perhaps because I am from California.	I think the justice system is perfectly fine the way it is, and others agree with me.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
Here's what Clinton actually My position would be that their cases should be handled like others, they should go through--there's a regular process for that, and I have regular meetings on that, and I review those cases as they come up after there's an evaluation done by the Justice Department.	All cases should go through the same process regardless of who they are about.	It is my position the courts should be disbanded so everyone can commit crimes.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
Apparently, for all those years the justices were just kidding around.	The justices have been pretending for all those years.	The justices have been working seriosuly for all those years.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
the uh system as it stands now i think if if the juries were done away with the judge could render a decision much quicker uh and you'd you'd feed more people through the courts as it were don't know where we'd put them once we got them through your courts but uh	Judges would be a lot faster at making decisions than juries.	Judges take a much longer time to make decisions than judges do.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
But judges, whose jobs depend on judicial procedures being impenetrable, convoluted, and self-contradictory, systematically conceal what they are thinking of when they use the phrase reasonable doubt.	Their jobs depend on judicial procedures being impenetrable.	The jobs of judges only depend on making sure that the people are happy with the outcome.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
Never before has a U.N. court been able to punish the actions of individuals . Both right- and left-wingers worry that the new U.N. tribunals will reprise the flaws of the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials, attempting to make political points and failing to adequately protect the rights of the accused.	Never before has the UN court been able to punish the actions of people.	The UN court has always been able to punish the actions of people.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
Here is an argument Americans can We should judge Russia's president the same way we judge ours.	There is an argument stating Americans should judge Russia's president the same as ours.	Americans should judge Canad's prime minister the same as ours.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
But see at least one before you pass judgement on this extraordinary institution.	Visit at least one before making a decision about this incredible institution.	Make you judgement on the institution before visiting one.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
La Manga has more than 30 courts, many of them at hotels.	Many of the courts are at hotels.	There are about 20 courts in La Manga.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
A judge for a dog show is in a suit and examining one of the dogs.	A judge judges a dog.	A cat show is being examined by a veterinary.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
A team of four judges rates a competition.	A judges watch a competition.	People are watching tv.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
i'd be more than happy to let the judge determine the uh the sentencing	It would please me if the judge was the one doing the sentencing.	Id be more than happy if we could still be vigilantes and handle justice without the courts.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
plus the all the judicial system is overloaded with all kinds of um problems and crimes and so forth and then all of the um civil things that clog the courts	The judicial system is swamped.	THe judicial system is on top of everything.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
Second, it neutralizes the summary judgment frame, since summary judgments are up to the judge, not the jury.	Summary judgments are decided by the judge.	Summary judgments are decided by the jury.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
But if the court could be televised discretely, in black and white, surely justice would not be imperiled, and might even be improved.	Justice might even be improved if the court was televised directly.	Justice will not be improved if the court was televised directly.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
Kinsley comes close to the real reason for rejecting Bork for a seat on the Supreme Court.	Kinsley almost gets to the true reason that the Supreme Court seat was denied to Bork.	Kinsley never approached why Bork was rejected.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
and it's just that i think they're just tying up the um whole judicial process um there's a lot of things they could do to uh make things easier and uh you know like uh the suggestion that uh maybe the uh a judge should be the one who decides on what the sentence should be rather than the jury	There was a suggestion that the jury should not decide sentences.	The suggestion was that the judge determine the sentence.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
thank uh federal judge named William Wayne Justice	Thank William Wayne Justice.	You should be thanking Judge Judy.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
The court system is open to observers, with very few exceptions, and such an opportunity ought not be missed.	In most cases observers are allowed in to the court.	The court system is only open to observers three days a year.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
Ten years ago, a judge was someone you saw behind the bench when you went to court.	Judges used to be people who sat behind the bench.	Ten years ago, the judges would fight law on the street.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
Some think that we ought to go back in time, ought to get rid of the Commission and replace it with not one but three administrative law judges to be borrowed from some other government agency.	Some people think the Commission should have been replaced with three judges.	Everyone believes the Commission ended up being the best solution.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
None of these do it, in the considered opinion of our distinguished panel of judges.	Our panel of judges think that none of these work.	The judges' opinion does not matter in this case.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
is the average because they'll appeal it for that many times	They will appeal more than once.	There is no way for them to appeal.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
yeah it's i i would imagine it would be pretty i have uh a friend of mine whose her son-in-law is a judge and i've gone to a a few things with her	A friend of mine has a son-in-law who is a judge.	I don't know anyone who knows a judge.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
um i personally think to set a mark with the judicial system and we're talking about criminals criminal cases that they should bring back	We talked about the system and what criminal cases they should look at.	We talked about Judge Judy.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
and then let them appeal yeah then you'd get yeah because some of it some of it's it's it's just down right	Yes, you should allow them to appeal.	.Appeals should not be allowed because it's a waste of time and money.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
Beginning with Bennett's afternoon press conference--Judge Wright should be complimented on her courage to make the right decision, notwithstanding all of the political atmosphere surrounding the case--the Clintonites incessantly lauded Wright's bravery.	Judge Wright has been appreciated for her courage to decide rightly for her own.	Judge Wright has been appreciated because she standed with all the political atmosphere surrounding the case..	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
Court of Appeals panel in Philadelphia to throw out the law, calling it profoundly repugnant.	The law was called profoundly repugnant.	Court of Appeals panel in Philadelphia to throw out their judges.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
yeah i mean because seems like i don't know i mean there's so many different different types of cases that come in i mean it seems like just general people i mean who are live in the community and do different things you know you have different opinions kind of just one judge who sits there and listens to cases all the time would would get it start thinking a certain way and go go nuts	There is one sitting judge who probably spends all of his time hearing cases.	There are lots of different judges and each one lists to cases rarely.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
because i know on some at times the news you know and they say the judge gives the sentencing and so that's what i guess i thought it was that way everywhere being as i hadn't been all the way through you know anything like that	I had based my opinion on what I had seen on the news, and that was judges giving sentences.	The judges I've spoken to before weren't thrilled.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
It now says, 'Federal Judges RULE!	It says Federal judges are great.	It says Federal judges are the worst.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
JUSTICE KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court.	The opinion was delivered by Kennedy.	The court opinion was delivered by Justice Roberts.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
The court does what it can and it is important that the court remain a fair and neutral ground, she said.	The court must remain a fair and neutral ground.	She did not say this.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
uh-huh well i think that there are many cases where uh the judges probably do make the decision rather than the jury Our situation was somewhat different uh in view of the fact that uh we haven't we were a landmark case it was the first time in the state of Ohio that um D N A testing was entered as evidence	It is my thought that judges make the determination rather than the jury.	I did not think that the judges make that decision.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
It also advocates removing Keller from the bench.	It also supports the idea of not letting Keller be a judge anymore.	It wants to keep Keller on the bench for as long as possible.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
I know my fe llow judges want to do justice and not inflict injustice, observed Justice Earl Johnson of the California Court of Appeal, who chaired the committee that researched and wrote the report.	Justice Earl Johnson believes that judges want to do justice.	He was certain that judges were involved in a conspiracy to commit injustice.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
By the way, this criticism is kind of refreshing in the sense that it's so different from the everyone knows prosecutors leak criticism that I've got.	The criticism is some what reinvigorating because it's different.	This criticism is overwhelming and unoriginal.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
the only thing that frightens me about that is the Graylord cases in uh Chicago where so many judges were guilty of so much misjustice from the bench	The Graylord cases in Chicago is the only thing that frightens me about that	The Graylord cases in New York is the only thing that frightens me about that	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
The rules are judgmental, not probabilistic.	There are judgemental rules in place.	The rules are more probabilistic than they are judgemental.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
There are thousands and thousands of people who have problems that never get an opportunity to appear in court, Pivnick said.	Of the thousand of people with problems, few ever get to court.	All the people who have had problems have appeared in court.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter, who is often lumped with the Mods, really belongs with the Prosecutors . Led by Specter and Mike DeWine (Ohio), who are, in fact, ex-prosecutors, the Prosecutors view themselves as the Senate's champions of The Law.	Arlen Specter is from Pennsylvania is typically considered a Mod.	Arlen Specter is from DC and is typically lumped in with the Prosecutors instead of the Mods.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
Ruling that the order was mutually binding, Judge Thornton also cited the men for contempt.	Thornton said the order bound both parties.	Thornton said the order bound neither party.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
The consensus prediction is that this would jeopardize Hillary's senatorial ambitions.	This thing might destroy Hillary's chances.	The judge gave Hillary a senate seat and she begrudgingly accepted.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
that's where if you had judges that had any backbone whatsoever they'd have thrown that out before it even got	Most of the judges don't have a proper backbone.	The vast majority of judges have ample backbone.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
4) Who cares whether the judges are honest?	Is a judge being honest something people care about?	Who cares if the judges are funny?	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
and that's another and that's another interesting question should judges be elected or appointed	Whether judges should be elected or appointed in an interesting question.	Whether judges should be elected or appointed isn't interesting.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
3) The appeals court's decision has nasty ramifications for the entire government.	The decision of the appeals court will have dire ramifications involving the entire government.	The decision of the court should on the whole be good for the government.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
so that's pretty bad a friend of mine is a is a judge here in the well actually you know it McKinney because we're in Collin County	McKinney, a friend of mine is a judge here.	You don't know my friend who's a judge, his name is Kenny Thompson.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
How judges interpret statutes and constitutions is, according to Scalia, a question utterly central to the existence of democratic government.	The wellbeing of a democratic government depends on judges.	The existence of democratic government is independent of judges.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
To Scalia, however, the idea that judicial power responds to the demands of the time merely proves that there have always been willful judges who bend the law to their wishes.	Scalia's belief in willful judges who bend the law for their own agenda, was justified.	Scalia accepted that it was justified that judicial power responds to the demands of the time.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
right right um you're subject to one appeal i i kind of don't agree with you on that i think probably you should have at least two appeals	There should be at least two appeals for you.	There should be three or four appeals.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
yeah do you think the verdict should be completely unanimous by the jury	In your opinion, should the verdict be unanimous by the jury?	The verdict should not be unanimous because I disagree completely.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ.	J. Kennedy gave the opinion of the court.	Souter delivered the opinion of the court.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
Since then, three justices have left the court, two of them from the pro-chair side.	Thwo pro-chair justices and one non, left the court.	The justices did not leave the court.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
well let me think here um as far as the judge making the decision	As far as the judge making a decision	The judge can't make decisions.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
From 1978 to 1980 he also served a two year clerkship with the Honorable A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr., of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.	Honorable A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr. once worked on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.	He clerked for the Honorable A. Leon Higginbotham for seven years.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
There might be a concern that the Justice Department has been too conservative in what they are presenting to the court if we're approving every one, he says.	He says that the Justice Department might be regarded as too conservative if we approve every one.	There's no chance of any concerns about what the Justice Department presents to the courts.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
But it was left to a three-judge U.S.	Although, it was left to a three-judge U.S.	It was left to China.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
I've talked to so many people over the years, either directly or through the reports from their advocates, about how alien a place the justice system can be, how unapproachable it can seem to them, Zelon said.	Zelon said he has spoken to many people over the years.	I have spoken to everyone directly.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
He has the cachet of being a long-standing family court judge, and lots of people like him, she said.	He has been a family court judge for a long time.	He doesn't have the cachet of being a long-standing family court judge.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
Retired Judge Joseph Thalhofer agreed.	Former Judge Joseph Thalhofer agreed.	Judge Joseph Thalhofer disagreed.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
The eternal shortage of judges means that some cases are adjudicated peremptorily.	Cases are being autocratically adjudicated due to a lack of judges.	There is no shortage of judges.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
so it i don't know whether it would be wiser to have an educated judge even though he may get uh out of touch after a while or whether it would be uh worth it to stick to the class of people that end up there	I'm not sure if we should have an intelligent judge because he could be out of touch.	I can foresee no problems with having an educated judge.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is	The court of appeals' judgement	The supreme court judgement.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
better than some of the judges i've seen	Some of these judges aren't particularly skilled at their jobs.	Worse than practically every judge I've ever met.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
Even when he graduated from North Decatur High School in 1975, sitting on the bench someday seemed more like a leisurely activity than a career.	He never dreamed of being a judge.	He knew from the beginning that he wanted to be a judge.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
Meanwhile in Albany, three top jurists were set to back up the news release with a press conference - Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye, Chief Administrative Judge Jonathan Lippman and Judge Juanita Bing Newton, deputy chief administrative judge for justice initiatives.	Three judges were set to hold a press conference in Albany.	Judith Kaye is a deputy adminstrative judge.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
Number of times the Commission took more than 120 days to rule on an appeal, Zero!	The Commission's never taken over four months to rule on an appeal.	The Commission has never ruled on an appeal.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
The efficient justice arrives at the court around 9 and leaves by 3--what other job in Washington has such sweet hours?	Justices are able to leave by 3.	Justices always have to stay late.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
But the standard for appointing an independent counsel can't be that broad.	The standard can't be that broad for appointing an independent counsel.	The standard for appointing and independent counsel should be made broader.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
um-hum of course i mean it's got its bad side so it's limited by the format and obviously you don't get into court as quickly as they seem to make it out that you do	You can't go to court as fast as you'd think from what they say.	There are no down sides to doing this.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
The justices who disagree with Rehnquist politically love him as a He's fair, agreeable, and fast.	Some justices disagree with Rehnquist.	All justices disagree with Rehnquist.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
But above all, she said, show respect to the judge, to the opposition and to the witnesses, in dress, in speech and in general bearing.	Respect everyone involved in the court room.	Do not respect anyone in the room.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
and uh and Night Court because they're right they show them back to back	Night court as well because they are shown back to back.	I've never heard of Night Court.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
Given that the justices on Washington's Supreme Court are elected, legal pundits say it's more likely that the court will narrow I-695 than overturn it.	Whether or not the justices on Washington's Supreme Court are elected has a relation to their decision with regard to I-695, according to legal pundits.	Legal pundits have no opinions on the relation between the justices on Washington's Supreme Court being elected and their decision with regard to I-695.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }
So how often are judges actually as willful as Scalia claims they are?	How often are judges as scalia says they are	Scalia says nothing about judges	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Supreme Court" }

2 million in damages, enough to permit the estate to get a judgment and execute on the negatives.

Since there were two million damages, the estate was allowed to seek a judgment.

Because the amount of damages were so low, the estate was unable to acquire a judgment.