[Orin Kerr, December 31, 2005 at 12:14am] Trackbacks
The Supreme Court is Getting Funnier:
So sayeth The New York Times:
  The mood under Chief Justice Roberts has brightened, . . . with the average number of justice-generated laughs per argument rising to 2.9 from 2.6 the previous term.
  In the current term, the Times analysis found, there has also been movement in the funniness-of-individual-justices department. Justice Breyer has taken the lead, at 28 laughs, edging out Justice Scalia, with 25. They also tied in the largest-number-of-jokes-in-a-single-argument category, each squeezing five into a single hour.
  The Times story builds on an amusing 2-page article by BU lawprof Jay Wexler in the latest issue of The Green Bag.
Gene Vilensky (mail) (www):
I hope that none of the humor is along the lines of "Ha ha! All human conduct is interstate commerce." or worse yet, "Ha ha! And you thought that the Constitution actually means something! Suckas!"
12.31.2005 1:19am
Defending the Indefensible:
Gene:

You might like Fafnir's blog.
12.31.2005 1:47am
Barbara (mail):
These "reporters" actually counted the number of laughs each justice got? That's worse than keeping sports statistics.

These clowns have far too much time on their hands.
12.31.2005 2:00am
Defending the Indefensible:
Barbara:

Court reporters, not press reporters.
12.31.2005 2:15am
LINO_watcher (mail) (www):
Yes, it would truly horrible if one's liberty and rights were being eroded by humorless quislings.

Funny that rights many people fought and died for are being given away with mere strokes of the pen by some chuckling legal functionaries.
12.31.2005 2:34am
Mike BUSL07 (mail):
LINO, do you want to clarify your position, or will that abstract indictment have to do? I prefer responding to substance, lest I seem a callous troll - which, you know - would suck.
12.31.2005 4:59am
Eric Muller (www):
The line from Justice Kennedy in the article is really quite funny, in a Stephen Wright kind of way.
12.31.2005 8:51am
Dave Hardy (mail) (www):
The difference is ... Breyer didn't realize he was being funny.
12.31.2005 12:28pm
WB:
I wonder if this is another reason not to allow oral arguments to be televised
12.31.2005 1:45pm
WB:
...or just another sign that it's inevitable
12.31.2005 1:48pm
LINO_watcher (mail) (www):
Mike-

Nothing too specific, just the general tendency not to stand up to the neocons while they are busy trying to cirumvent or dismantle the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, international law, etc.

I'm not a Supreme Court watcher or scholar so I can't cite specific verdicts, just a general tendency not to be concerned with restraining government power or defending individual rights of all kinds - civil, property, human, etc.
12.31.2005 2:57pm
Frank Drackmann (mail):
OMG when Clarence Thomas stuck that Pubic Hair on Judge Ginsburgs coffee cup...i thought I would bust..
12.31.2005 3:26pm
Dustin (mail):
Or when Scalia had too much garlic, and that lawyer handed him a mint and said: "Certs granted."
12.31.2005 7:17pm
honeybadger (mail):
LINO_watcher says:
"I'm not a Supreme Court watcher or scholar"

Really? And here I thought your name referred to being a Lino Graglia fan. Oh well. Google what he has to say about the Supreme Court and I'll bet you will be soon enough. You'll thank me for this! LOL
1.1.2006 4:51am
dweeb:
Of course, people compiling and publishing statistics like this won't help sell the idea of TV cameras in the Supremem Court.
1.2.2006 1:27pm
LINO_watcher (mail) (www):
honeybadger-

The nickname is an acronym, I didn't even know there was such a thing as a Lino Graglia. I'll take a look.

LINO = Libertarians In Name Only.
1.4.2006 10:37am