More Judges Who Think They are Funny:
Via Prawfs. My own plea to the federal judiciary: Please stop with the rhymes, pop lyrics, and other cute stuff. Thanks, a reader.
Features
Stuff from us
Academic Legal Writing: personalized bookplates
Sources on the Second Amendment
Yes, it's a little lame. But it's also nice to see that judges can have fun and not take themselves *too* seriously (while conducting serious business).
But if there is a way to be funny or reference some pop culture source that at least relates to the argument or assertion the Judge is making, then that is fine. Stevens in his Heller dissent told the story of the blind who try to describe an elephant. Agree or disagree, it was helpful to making his point. Bob Dylan lyrics? I'm not sure.
My experience has been that in most cases where judges do things like this, the lawyers (for one or both sides) have already made such a mockery of the proceeding that the judge can't do anything more to undermine the solemnity and importance of his office.
Is your objection to the practice, or just to the practice done poorly? Because when it's (rarely) done well, it strikes me as a win-win. In any event, I hope your complaint doesn't reach beyond legal opinions. There's some classic stuff, like J. Kozinski and Eugene's piece on Yiddish, which is pretty cute.
No one wants a wanna-be stand-up comedian for a judge. However, this was in response to a 465-page complaint filed by a lawyer in federal court. If any situation called for (or was excused by) a little levity, surely this was it.
Judge Posner manages to inject wit into his opinions in a way that actually adds to the analysis. One of my favorites is his opinion in Employers Insurance of Wausau v. Titan International, Inc. (March 3, 2005), in which Judge Posner explains why the court rejects one of the plaintiff's arguments, and summarizes his analysis as "the law is not finders keepers."
In Jenkins v. BellSouth Corp., 491 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2007), Judge Pryor opened the opinion with an analogy between a "revival" of a religious service (common in the South) and the petitioner's argument, which sought a "revival" of an enforceable right. That added a bit of color to the opinion and framed the legal issue without being self-indulgent.
On the other hand, Syufy and the Billy Madison-inspired bankruptcy court "order denying motion for incomprehensibility" and similar things are good for a laugh, but are ultimately self-indulgent and have no place in a judicial opinion. If a judge needs a creative outlet, s/he can write on the side.
Similar to the UT-Arkansas football opinion a couple of weeks ago. It's okay to be cutesy when you're officiating over a meaningless discovery spat over the location of a deposition. Not so if this was a prisoner seeking habeas relief.
I read this opinion. It was appropriate, and appropriately summed.
While the cites to those articles are long-forgotten, I did remember this website. Worth checking out.
He stopped after a few of the justices criticized the practice.
Me too, but which request is more likely to be granted: (1) resist the urge to add the occasional cute flourish to your opinions, or (2) stop being an awful judge ?
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.