The post says that "Attempts at humor usually fall flat" but also that it's not humorless. If you've listened anytime recently, oral arguments can have semi-formal tone. Of course there's requisite formality of procedure, and I can't even recall an occasion when that has lapsed, but because these are actual discussions, there is a good amount of rather straightforward talk. Justices regularly construct absurd scenarios to test the limits of arguments, and some of the following argumentation can be pretty funny. It's worth a listening from time to time.
All that precise language when addressing usually some old guy in black robes (I intentionally put it that way, I'm not in front of the court) reminds me a lot of Japanese formality rules.
It drove me crazy to try to remember and assess not just how to say it in Japanese, but how to change the subject to be honorific, or extra honorific. Or change my own pronoun to ore, boku, watashi, watakushi depending on whether I wanted to try to be intimate or not. Or, remember that damn conjugation rules around converting the sentence to passive, or whatever.
Those rules made me constantly insecure when talking to peers, even when they weren't technically peers. When I did aikido, I was starting as a 1st year in aikido, though I was a 3rd year in college. So, many of my "senpais" were younger but I had to address them a certain way, even when we weren't in the dojo.
All these rules from this article seem like they are designed to give the judges power over the people addressing the court. That seems really strange when I think about it that way. Why do we need to lionize the people, can't their brilliant legal minds carry the full weight of the arguments and decisions?
It is about respect for the institution, regardless of the man. It is why judges are addressed as "your honor" or "judge" as it is to their integrity and their office we plead not to them as individuals.
These are all examples where we do use honorifics. And now for ones where we don't.
"yes, planner"
"yes, assessor"
"yes, child caseworker"
In all the cases, the institution should have integrity and we're not interacting with them as individuals but as agents of the institution. Certainly tax assessors should not be acting on their own personal beliefs but are merely mechanical agents of an impartial tax machine (as judges should be in their domain). However, in some it sounds ridiculous and in others it's natural. The existence of "yes, chef" (in a kitchen) or "yes, coach" (on a team) points to a more general reason: this is a way of expressing that the person with the title has some degree of social standing in the context we're interacting with them in.
There might be a more specific reason we can come up with that is specific to judges, but the general reason suffices to explain it.
On some superficial level, sure: you have to follow the rules because if you don't, it won't end well for you. But the reason for these rules isn't just self-aggrandizement.
Ultimately, the court is there to implement a procedure. The procedure wasn't invented by the judges; in criminal cases, it's there to give you some protection from the rest of the government, which could otherwise use its police powers to put you in prison based on a whim. The protection isn't perfect, but it beats the alternative.
The court would not be able to carry out that procedure if, for example, anyone could just constantly talk over the judges and not let them get a word in. So there is a pecking order in the courtroom, but mostly because you couldn't have courts without it.
I'd prefer SCOTUS to blog about when it is appropriate for a justice to fly treason flags supporting insurrectionists or decline to recuse themselves from cases involving their insurrectionist family members.
Some people are always prepared to throw political talking points at you, even if you just want to talk about the weather or whether to swear at judges, or something. Can't imagine the perpetual stress of such mental state.
"Why are people discussing SCOTUS when the topic is SCOTUS, my goodness."
Yeah, unfortunately these days you have to choose between stressful awareness or (often deliberate) complete ignorance. Sometimes I do wish I was too unintelligent to understand what's wrong, I might be able to enjoy life a bit more.
A growing portion of the population couldn't care less about what's "appropriate" at SCOTUS anymore.
When you basically let your institution be co-opted as a part of a man's effort to run the federal government as a private company intended exclusively for the benefit of himself and his associates, you can expect jokes.
The US Supreme Court currently is a joke itself with their Kavanaugh stops laws and other agenda driven politics and mostly in the way the cowardly justices aren’t even providing reasoning or guidance on any of their brain dead rulings to lower courts.
The current Supreme Court has no regard for law and justice for the people of the USA. What a joke.
Hey, don’t say that! SCOTUS said it’s bad for the country for them to be perceived as partisan. According to them, the correct fix is to stop describing their partisan actions as partisan.
And you have only one party to blame for this, it also predates all the Trump unhinged cases/decisons and even his first mandate.
Republicans simply suceeded in their plan to take over the federal judiciary branch from the top, in great part with the help of the Federalist Society.
The only answer if Democrats ever take power back is to pack the court now, no amount of unwritten rules following and norms respecting can work against people who abuse the system and packed the court themselves (by unjustifiably blocking candidates nominations which would have balanced the court, for years)
I wonder if a two-party race to the ethical bottom is the only way to fix things because if underhanded unethical tactics only benefit one party then they won't want to fix it.
Clarence Thomas was confirmed in a very different era of politics, when the long term right wing strategy was only just beginning to take root; the vituperative rhetoric was still on the comparative fringe of talk radio; and cooperation was still the norm from both sides.
Obama should have picked a replacement for RBG. Biden and the democratic congress should have done more to get the judiciary back in line. They had their opportunities.
RBG passed away while Trump was president. Obama did pick a replacement for Antonin Scalia though: Merrick Garland. Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to even give Garland a hearing arguing it was "too close to the presidential election", even though Obama's term had about one year to go.
Nah, it's really just Republicans doing all the corruption these days at the SUpreme Court. Unless you can provide some decent examples of Democrats. You seem to be bothsidesing the issue when McConnell stole multiple seats.
Analysis by Fix the Court identified 546 gifts valued at over $4.7 million given to 18 current and former justices, with Justice Clarence Thomas as the primary recipient.
Judicial reform bills have tried to address the issue, but these bills have very little chance of success in the current political environment.
In some sense, it is quite remarkable that the institution has survived this long considering they control outcomes of such vast power while being indirectly elected, holding the post for life, and there being such a high standard for the legislature to remove them that it has never been used successfully.
Looking it up, Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas resigned from office because he accepted $20k from a chap who he was judging a case on. It reminds me of Babe Ruth's life time earnings being under a million, while Shohei Ohtani's annual pay rewound to 1931 dollars is some 3 times that.
They're probably referring to the millions of dollars of gifts Clarence Thomas received over the years, often just prior to ruling in the gift giver's favor.
Clarence and Alito have received gifts that would raise serious scrutiny if they were a “regular” government employee. Here’s a link to the series of articles covering this over the last few years.
The post says that "Attempts at humor usually fall flat" but also that it's not humorless. If you've listened anytime recently, oral arguments can have semi-formal tone. Of course there's requisite formality of procedure, and I can't even recall an occasion when that has lapsed, but because these are actual discussions, there is a good amount of rather straightforward talk. Justices regularly construct absurd scenarios to test the limits of arguments, and some of the following argumentation can be pretty funny. It's worth a listening from time to time.
All that precise language when addressing usually some old guy in black robes (I intentionally put it that way, I'm not in front of the court) reminds me a lot of Japanese formality rules.
It drove me crazy to try to remember and assess not just how to say it in Japanese, but how to change the subject to be honorific, or extra honorific. Or change my own pronoun to ore, boku, watashi, watakushi depending on whether I wanted to try to be intimate or not. Or, remember that damn conjugation rules around converting the sentence to passive, or whatever.
Those rules made me constantly insecure when talking to peers, even when they weren't technically peers. When I did aikido, I was starting as a 1st year in aikido, though I was a 3rd year in college. So, many of my "senpais" were younger but I had to address them a certain way, even when we weren't in the dojo.
All these rules from this article seem like they are designed to give the judges power over the people addressing the court. That seems really strange when I think about it that way. Why do we need to lionize the people, can't their brilliant legal minds carry the full weight of the arguments and decisions?
It is about respect for the institution, regardless of the man. It is why judges are addressed as "your honor" or "judge" as it is to their integrity and their office we plead not to them as individuals.
Looking at examples of honorific usage:
"yes, officer"
"yes, doctor"
"yes, madam mayor"
"yes, senator"
These are all examples where we do use honorifics. And now for ones where we don't.
"yes, planner"
"yes, assessor"
"yes, child caseworker"
In all the cases, the institution should have integrity and we're not interacting with them as individuals but as agents of the institution. Certainly tax assessors should not be acting on their own personal beliefs but are merely mechanical agents of an impartial tax machine (as judges should be in their domain). However, in some it sounds ridiculous and in others it's natural. The existence of "yes, chef" (in a kitchen) or "yes, coach" (on a team) points to a more general reason: this is a way of expressing that the person with the title has some degree of social standing in the context we're interacting with them in.
There might be a more specific reason we can come up with that is specific to judges, but the general reason suffices to explain it.
It is because they have power, and want to be addressed this way. And you are likely to lose your case if you don't follow their rules.
On some superficial level, sure: you have to follow the rules because if you don't, it won't end well for you. But the reason for these rules isn't just self-aggrandizement.
Ultimately, the court is there to implement a procedure. The procedure wasn't invented by the judges; in criminal cases, it's there to give you some protection from the rest of the government, which could otherwise use its police powers to put you in prison based on a whim. The protection isn't perfect, but it beats the alternative.
The court would not be able to carry out that procedure if, for example, anyone could just constantly talk over the judges and not let them get a word in. So there is a pecking order in the courtroom, but mostly because you couldn't have courts without it.
You don’t need to. The Supreme Court makes its own jokes.
I'd prefer SCOTUS to blog about when it is appropriate for a justice to fly treason flags supporting insurrectionists or decline to recuse themselves from cases involving their insurrectionist family members.
Some people are always prepared to throw political talking points at you, even if you just want to talk about the weather or whether to swear at judges, or something. Can't imagine the perpetual stress of such mental state.
"Why are people discussing SCOTUS when the topic is SCOTUS, my goodness."
Yeah, unfortunately these days you have to choose between stressful awareness or (often deliberate) complete ignorance. Sometimes I do wish I was too unintelligent to understand what's wrong, I might be able to enjoy life a bit more.
This site isn’t affiliated with SCOTUS.
A growing portion of the population couldn't care less about what's "appropriate" at SCOTUS anymore.
When you basically let your institution be co-opted as a part of a man's effort to run the federal government as a private company intended exclusively for the benefit of himself and his associates, you can expect jokes.
The US Supreme Court currently is a joke itself with their Kavanaugh stops laws and other agenda driven politics and mostly in the way the cowardly justices aren’t even providing reasoning or guidance on any of their brain dead rulings to lower courts.
The current Supreme Court has no regard for law and justice for the people of the USA. What a joke.
Hey, don’t say that! SCOTUS said it’s bad for the country for them to be perceived as partisan. According to them, the correct fix is to stop describing their partisan actions as partisan.
The Supreme Court is the joke… it has lost all credibility with partisan inconsistency and overt bribery.
And you have only one party to blame for this, it also predates all the Trump unhinged cases/decisons and even his first mandate.
Republicans simply suceeded in their plan to take over the federal judiciary branch from the top, in great part with the help of the Federalist Society.
The only answer if Democrats ever take power back is to pack the court now, no amount of unwritten rules following and norms respecting can work against people who abuse the system and packed the court themselves (by unjustifiably blocking candidates nominations which would have balanced the court, for years)
I wonder if a two-party race to the ethical bottom is the only way to fix things because if underhanded unethical tactics only benefit one party then they won't want to fix it.
This is downvoted, but true.
Democrats, while better than republicans in this regard, are also to blame. It is not one or the other.
How so? The judiciary is stacked with compromised individuals. the republicans did this.
Clearance Thomas was confirmed 52-48, with 11 dems voting in favor [0]. He wouldn't have been confirmed without dem votes.
(The other five shitheads would have been confirmed without dem votes if I'm not mistaken.)
[0] https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1...
I wasn’t aware of that - thank you.
No worries.
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely blame the republicans for the state of the court. I'm just saying the dems have some shit on their hands too.
Clarence Thomas was confirmed in a very different era of politics, when the long term right wing strategy was only just beginning to take root; the vituperative rhetoric was still on the comparative fringe of talk radio; and cooperation was still the norm from both sides.
It’s their job to spot the rotten ones and block them.
Everyone who voted for him is culpable.
Obama should have picked a replacement for RBG. Biden and the democratic congress should have done more to get the judiciary back in line. They had their opportunities.
RBG passed away while Trump was president. Obama did pick a replacement for Antonin Scalia though: Merrick Garland. Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to even give Garland a hearing arguing it was "too close to the presidential election", even though Obama's term had about one year to go.
Obama and Biden should have done more. But they are not responsible for the malicious and calculated mess that has followed.
Could you elaborate?
Nah, it's really just Republicans doing all the corruption these days at the SUpreme Court. Unless you can provide some decent examples of Democrats. You seem to be bothsidesing the issue when McConnell stole multiple seats.
I'm unfamiliar with this, can you elaborate?
Analysis by Fix the Court identified 546 gifts valued at over $4.7 million given to 18 current and former justices, with Justice Clarence Thomas as the primary recipient.
Judicial reform bills have tried to address the issue, but these bills have very little chance of success in the current political environment.
From 2024:
https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hol...
In some sense, it is quite remarkable that the institution has survived this long considering they control outcomes of such vast power while being indirectly elected, holding the post for life, and there being such a high standard for the legislature to remove them that it has never been used successfully.
Looking it up, Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas resigned from office because he accepted $20k from a chap who he was judging a case on. It reminds me of Babe Ruth's life time earnings being under a million, while Shohei Ohtani's annual pay rewound to 1931 dollars is some 3 times that.
They're probably referring to the millions of dollars of gifts Clarence Thomas received over the years, often just prior to ruling in the gift giver's favor.
Here's the source I'm sure you'll want: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/06/supreme-court-justices-milli...
It's a big surprising thing to hear about for the first time! Glad to help you become familiar.
[dead]
What bribery?
https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-money-com...
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/06/supreme-court-justices-milli...
Etc etc, and that's just one of them, and that's just what's public.
https://playbill.com/article/watch-supreme-court-justice-ket...
Clarence and Alito have received gifts that would raise serious scrutiny if they were a “regular” government employee. Here’s a link to the series of articles covering this over the last few years.
https://www.propublica.org/series/supreme-court-scotus
Clarence Thomas accepted multiple bribes from Harlan Crow
The Supreme court currently is itself a joke. They are bought and paid for agents of Trump.
It used to matter if you would say such things in court. It does not matter now when the court is loaded with unintelligent purchased ghouls.
Are all 4 existing comments here from bots? They’re basically all saying the same thing..
No, I checked, all look like old accounts run by humans. It’s telling, the common opinion, isn’t it?
I am a human. I see overlap in thought on a fresh post.
That's exactly what a bot would say!
Lol, that gets an upvote from me.
I actually like to call out AI shortcomings
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47507666#47513216
Also, hope I’m not succumbing to AI psychosis, and starting to talk more like a bot. Autism be like that sometimes.
In modern politics the end justifies the means.
Are you pro abortion? The end justifies the means, because you are saving women.
Are you pro live? The end justifies the means, because you are saving babies.
As long as the playing field is good vs evil there can't be a rational discussion.