Justice Roberts’s wit

You may also like...

6 Responses

  1. Gerard Magliocca says:

    I think he does too much of this sort of thing honestly. I find it kind of grating.

  2. Howard Wasserman says:

    I agree with Gerard. Consider this, from today: “modern cell phones, which are now such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life that
    the proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude they were an important feature of human anatomy.”

  3. Bill Araiza says:

    Count me in with Gerard and Howard. A few years ago he wrote an opinion that described a police officer’s work in some mock Sam Spade voice. Cringe-worthy.

  4. Joe says:

    The last comment really is not the same — it was a dissent from a denial sort of thing where == like concurring and dissent opinions == it is pretty different from an opinion of the Court. I don’t think a bit of wit really is a problem though it can be overdone. And, I’m sure there are cases, just like Scalia has long jumped the shark on that level.

    Really, is the comment about Mars a big deal? I find thinking it is kind of silly myself. YMMV.

  5. AYY says:

    I agree with the first three commenters. In a way it’s undignified and demeaning to the litigants. Moylan (Md. app) and Gardner (Cal. app) could do this sort of thing pretty well when it was called for, and one of the judges on the Ninth Circuit (who’ll remain nameless) can do it sometimes (maybe not quite as often as he might think), but most would do well to keep the witticisms out of judicial opinions.

  6. Joe says:

    Real sensitive subjects should also not be covered in law articles that have those cutesy titles.

    When the opinion as a whole is serious, I don’t think a few quips disrespects people. Are we really saying that a ruling, e.g., that broadly protects cell phone privacy is “disrespectful” because in thirty or so pages, Roberts tosses in quips? Or, are we saying the government is being disrespected here? Are we worried about their feelings?