I don't mind it on principle, but many of these seem so forced. The claim is "confused" so it's like the Jimi Hendrix lyric which happens to mention the word "confusion." Great stuff.

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.

Adam K:

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.

Adam,

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.

The practice is self-indulgent and annoying. When it's done poorly, it's even more self-indulgent and annoying and has no redeeming value. If judges are afraid of writing boring opinions, perhaps they should work on their writing skills and make their opinions clearer (and thereby less tedious) instead of winking at law students and bloggers in the footnotes.

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.

I suspect many lawyers don't like judges who lack solemnity because they themselves lack humor.

I read this opinion. It was appropriate, and appropriately summed.

The use of "judicial humor" is a surprisingly (or not?) controversial topic. During law school a prof and I were going to write an article on it. There was already enough literature out there, so we didn't.

While the cites to those articles are long-forgotten, I did remember this website. Worth checking out.

Perhaps if the use of lyrics didn't keep getting blog highlighting, they might stop ...

I'd rather the Chief's levity than AMK's show of faux judicial majesty

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 ?