Okay, so this is probably not a “great” debate; let’s call it a petit debate. It’s not uncommon, when someone refers to the “chief justice of the Supreme Court,” for some know-it-all to pipe up with "Who? What? There’s no such thing. It’s ‘chief justice of the United States.’ "
Here’s my petit argument – While the official title might be “Chief Justice of the United States” (and I’ve weighed in already on these boards regarding my objection to government offices in a democracy conferring titles of any kind on officeholders), “chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court” is a perfectly reasonable, accurate, and correct description of the job and is generally more useful than the formal title, as attested to by its common use.
So, next time someone refers to the “chief justice of the Supreme Court,” before wise-guying it, just pause, take a breath and realize that the speaker has actually not committed any error.
I’ve never thought about being pissed off about this before, but maybe now I’ll start. My old ‘Origin of The Species’ vs. ‘The Origin of Species’ pendanticism isn’t getting much mileage anymore.
I’ve never really taken issue with it; it is, as you note, a nitpick. But it is interesting to note that Chief Justices through, I think, Morrison Waite were “of the Supreme Court,” and those since are “of the United States,” specifically in recognition of the fact that the Office of the Chief Justice performs necessary functions relative to the whole Federal court system, not merely being lead singer for the Supremes. [It might also be worthwhile to note, in reference to 1998-99, that the Chief Justice, unlike any of his brethren on the Supreme Court, has the constitutional role of presiding over the Senate when it sits as the Court for the Trial of Impeachments of the President (and presumably of the Vice President).]
It might be worth generalizing this: if there’s a solid informational reason to bring a nitpick up (e.g., my explanation above), then it’s worthwhile. If it’s merely a “Gotcha Ya!” on a minor error of usage, a subtle correction in passing while addressing more pertinent and significant points is adequate. (“BTW, Robert Morris’s cousin was Gouverneur, not “Governor” – he was named after his mother’s family the Gouverneurs.”)
“Queen of England” is another perennial favorite. Yes, her style (in that capacity) is “Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” – which should probably be acronymized to QUKoGBaNI . But the area south of Scotland and east of Wales is indeed part of the U.K., and in consequence has a Queen, namely Elizabeth II – who is in that respect Queen of England. (She’s also by the same token Queen of Manitoba, and for that matter Queen of Queensland! ;))
But yeah, outstanding point. A nit should only be picked when (a) the point of the nitpick is truly relevant to the argument, or (b) to provide information/correction in passing while making a substantive point.
I’m not sure about constitutional law of the Canadian Provinces, but HM really is Queen of Queensland, and of the other States of Australian, as well as Queen of Australia. Normally her only duty with respect to the States is to appoint a Governor on the advice of the Premier of the State. However, the advice is given and the appointment is made directly between the Queen and the State concerned, and doesn’t go via the Federal Government.
Back in 1999 when a constituional change was proposed to make the Commonwealth of Australia into a republic, the question was asked as to whether this would make the States republics too. I think it was generally accepted that, while it might be odd and even embarrassing, there would be no constitutional barrier to Australia being a republic and several of the States remaining monarchies, with the sovereign of the UK continuing to be the sovereign of those states, as her predecessor was before 1901.
As long as we’re on the subject of pedantic nitpickings that annoy us, i’d like to state that the next person who tells me the US is “a republic, not a democracy” is getting shanked.
Same goes for anyone who refers to Mardi Gras as “Fat Tuesday”.
I’ll hold them down after they say “a republic, not a democracy” so you can get several good jabs in. We’re both a republic and a democracy. jabBoth!jab
But what’s with “Fat Tuesday”? That’s what it’s called in English. Or, at least in Ohio where I grew up; we didn use no forrin words like “Marty’s Grass”.
And, acsenray, why do you not like titles? So we shouldn’t call the chief executive officer of the U.S. the “President of the United States”? The titles in our republic are not titles of nobility as found in monarchies. They’re more like job titles, like “Sr. Research Scientist”.
Given that Mardi Gras, (Carnival, Shrove Tuesday, Fettisdagen, Paczki Day, Faschingsdienstag, (Fasnacht Day), Terça-feira Gorda, Martes de Carnaval, etc.) carries so many different names in so many languages–many of them directly translating to English as “Fat Tuesday”–I deny your petition on the grounds that you have neither standing nor logic behind you.
If you insist that English speakers may not use a translation of another language (that directly translates the exact phrase from, at minimum, French, German, Spanish, Swedish, and Portuguese), then I insist that you speak only the actual English phrase for the day and compel you to speak of it only as Shrove Tuesday from this day forward.
In my mind, there’s a big difference between a job title/description and a title, as used with a person’s name. Yes, of course, the person holding the office designated in the Constitution as such is correctly referred to as “the president of the United States,” when it is necessary and relevant to specify such.
However, we should not entitle such person either in direct address or by reference as “Mr. President,” or “President Bush,” or “President Bill Clinton,” or “former President Jimmy Carter,” etc.
For example:
Fine by me: “The president today criticized members of Congress for …”
Also fine by me: “Mr. Bush, the U.S. president, stated today …”
Also fine by me: “The U.S. president, George W. Bush, called for …”
What I object to: “President [George W.] Bush today criticized …”
Also objectionable (to me): “Mr. President, can you explain … ?”
Those last two examples are the ones in which the name of a government office is being used as a personal title for the person holding that office. I believe it’s subversive of the democratic spirit.
In particular, I believe that holders of constitutional offices should not take unto themselves or be granted by those interacting with them any title or honorific that cannot be legitimately claimed by any U.S. citizen. So Mr./Ms./Mrs. is okay by me. But no titles that are based on the name of the office that the person holds. And definitely no “Your Honors” or “the Honorable” – The chief justice is owed the courtesy of “Mr. Roberts,” just like any citizen would be, but nothing more.
I’m also not finding even a petit (or even petty) debate in this thread. (I have never even encountered the sort of nitpicking over the SCOTUS center chair noted in the OP–although I am certain there are persons who would engage in that sort of behavior).
Ah, you’re objecting to titles as honorifics, not titles as job descriptions. I can understand that, although I’m not sure I agree. Do you object to all earned honorifics (including Dr, Rev, Prof) or only those derived from public office?
Secondarily: Used with reference to those holding public office. So, while Condoleeza Rice holds the office of secretary of state, she should be addressed only as “Ms. Rice,” not as “Dr. Rice” or “Secretary Rice.”
A side issue, of course, is the complete idiocy of addressing the attorney general or solicitor general or surgeon general as “general.” My objections to that on the grounds of sheer stupidity are much stronger than my objections on the ground of anti-democraticism.
As far as professors, doctors, reverends are concerned, I don’t care so much when it comes to personal interactions, but I believe the news media would set a good example in refraining from use of them.
IMHO, the use of titles as honorifics is appropriate when they are functioning as the holder of that office. “The U.S. policy on land mines was clarified today by Secretary of State Condoleesa Rice. Secretary Rice said…” but “Condoleesa Rice, U.S. Secretary of State, was the commencement speaker at Pottstown State University. Dr. Rice’s address spoke of the importance of…” There is also the value of using title-as-honorific to make clear which of several similarly named people is being referred to. “That remark is attributed to Vice-President Adlai Stevenson, grandfather of the 1950s Illinois governor and two-time candidate for President.”
My own rant here: There is no such thing as “a reverend.” Unless you consider that Scalia, Souter, Ito, Learned Hand, or Judge Judy is “an honorable.”
“The Rev. John Jones” is the proper salutation in formal correspondence for someone whose job title is pastor, preaching elder, priest, or something similar. “Reverend” is an adjective, literally meaning “worthy of reverence,” and in colloquial use “member of the clergy,” not a job title or honorific noun.
While I’m at it, I physically restrained myself from Pitting someone who referred to “the Right Rev. Fred Phelps” in a sarcastic tone over in GD. “Right Reverend” is the honorific given in formal settings to an Anglican bishop (formerly to any bishop, but for reasons I’m not clear on, all Catholic bishops now get “Most Reverend,” which is appropriate only for Archbishops and other Primates in Anglicanism). It’s an intensifier, slightly archaic or dialectal in other uses, and “a right courteous thing for y’all to use in polite circles.”
And I think you’re missing the point. I think most or all of us here already know that. However, for the vast majority of situations in which someone wants to refer to the chief justice, this distinction is irrelevant. It is perfectly true that John G. Roberts Jr. is chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, by description if not by formal title. And most of the time, when someone wants to refer to him, it is this part of his job that is relevant to the conversation.
And that is what I object to. Holding a government job in a democracy should not entitle a person to a title. It’s just a job, a temporary one, and one that is (ultimately) subject to the will of the people. The people are the superiors in this relationship. The inferior (i.e., the government official) should not be given deference with an honorific.
The U.S. policy on land mines was clarified today by the U.S. secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice. [Ms.] Rice said …"
Condoleezza Rice, the U.S. secretary of state, was the commencement speaker at Pottstown State University. [Ms.] Rice’s address spoke of the importance of …"
See, it’s just as easy and just as clear. This story doesn’t seem to implicate her doctorate degree or academic background, but if that were necessary, it would be easy enough to throw in a “who holds a doctorate degree in political science and who served as provost of Stanford University before joining the Bush administration.” Yes, that’s a lot longer than “Dr.,” but then the “Dr.” doesn’t really offer very much useful information at all. If it’s not worth explaining, then it’s not really worth setting forth.
(And as you can see, I consider the “Ms.” optional in this case. News reports commonly refer to persons by family name only after the first reference. The New York Times, which still uses such courtesy titles, is a notable exception.)
“That remark is attributed to Adlai E. Stevenson I, who served as U.S. vice president from 1893 to 1897 and who was the grandfather of Adlai E. Stevenson II, who was governor of Illinois and the Democratic nominee for U.S. president in 1952 and 1956.”
Not any harder than what you’ve written and it could be cut down further: “That remark is attributed to the Adlai Stevenson who was vice president in the 1890s and was the grandfather of the Adlai Stevenson who was Illinois governor and a presidential candidate in the 1950s.”
I’m perfectly aware of that and was using verbal shorthand, but nitpick away. My only point is that I believe that those judges, holding government offices, should not be granted the “honorable.”
You got that worked up over a sarcastic comment? It seems pretty clear to me that the poster wasn’t using “right rev.” in a literal sense, but in a sarcastic, disparaging sense. In that context, it doesn’t really matter that it wouldn’t really be used in a non-Anglican or non-bishopric situation.
“That remark is attributed to Vice-President Adlai Stevenson, grandfather of the 1950s Illinois governor and two-time candidate for President.”
“That remark is attributed to the Adlai Stevenson who was vice president in the 1890s and was the grandfather of the Adlai Stevenson who was Illinois governor and a presidential candidate in the 1950s.”
The former statement is much clearer, more concise, and not a run-on sentence.
Why not? Say you have a club, and you elect somebody to be the chair. In matters relevant to the club, wouldn’t you address him (when he is acting in that capacity) as 'Mr. Chairman/Ms. Chair[something]"? I don’t really see your objection here.
There is a distinct difference between “a government job” and “an office” – and not just in the fact that many of the latter are elective. True professionals bring to their employment a dedication that warrants courtesy as a mark of respect. (I’d drag out the Lazarus Long quote on the value of courtesy here – but essentially it’s a lubricant in the social machine, keeping rough edges from rubbing against each other and causing friction.)
I would absolutely hope that a surgeon is not going to quit operating, or a police officer is not going to stop arresting an armed felon, because it’s the end of his shift. And that professionalism deserves to be recognized by “Dr. Cutemup” and “Officer Friendly.” General Blitzer and Admiral Salvo are reminded that the defense of their nations and the lives of their subordinates are in their hands every time they’re addressed by their titles. The judge, the mayor are being reminded that their job is to do justice, to be the political leader of the city, by “the Honorable” hanging out before their names – they are not permitted to be arbitrary or partisan. The same goes for a clergyman; his job is not to engage in a GD-style witness but to stand for the faith taught by his Lord and to minister to others in the way He commanded. If “the Reverend” brings that home to him, he deserves to hear it.
I think acsenray is saying that titles used because they’re expected is undemocratic. And that’s true. When they acknowledge a commitment to professonalism voluntarily undertaken, they have their place. When someone abuses that role, they deserve not to be recognized by title. (I have never used “the Rev.” of Jerry Falwell or “Dr.” of James Dobson, so far as I can recall; IMO they’ve forfeited any right to those titles.)
Perhaps your definition of run-on sentence differs from mine, but you’re drawing me into trivial matters here. (There are many ways to recast the sentence without using “Vice President” as an honorific, even by eliminating more of the (perhaps) unnecessary information – “Adlai Stevenson I, the vice president and grandfather of the Illinois governor Adlai Stevenson II.” ) And, to me, the minimal benefit you’re getting from marginal savings in words is far outweighed what I consider the moral imperative of not granting honorifics based on holding office in a democracy.
No, I’d usually address them by name, because who is dorky enough to follow such formalities in a recreational context? But, again, that’s trivializing the matter. An official in a club (or a corporation, for that matter) is not the same as the holder of a government position in a democracy. Addressing the chairman of a club as “chairman” does not carry an implication of “more than a citizen.”
My objection is this – the holder of a government office should not be granted honorifics that carry with them the implication of deference. In a democracy, we are all equal. Citizen A should not owe or grant Citizen B any deference or honor that Citizen B does not reciprocate. As I said before, our government officials are our employees; they are our subordinates; they serve at our (collective) pleasure. We should not offer them deference.
In my view, the “true professionals” are the ones holding “government jobs,” not the ones holding elective office.
I’m advocating courtesies on an egalitarian basis – Mr. Polycarp, Mr. Bush, Mr. Roberts. The oil is there, but we all get the same grade.
I would hope that none of these admirable characteristics are based on getting special deference from others.
No, I object to all honorifics for government office holders, not just when it’s “expected.” Because there’s no way for it to be voluntary. As soon as you use it for one, you must use it for all, because then the omission becomes an insult. And it still serves to grant someone the status of “Citizen Plus.”
It isn’t a democracy though. Representative Democracy, regardless of having “Democracy” in the title, still doesn’t mean it’s a democracy.
Our democratic element comes via that each person in a constituency’s voice is theoretically embodied in the vote of their representative. But for specifically that reason the position of the representative is of a greater power than that of any individual. The position is made up out of the power of all the voices it represents, and the position embodies all of those voices. The person filling the position may change, but their being a greater power that represents the voice of the people doesn’t change.
I think it would be much easier to argue that the person should never be called “Mr. X” and instead “Senator X” or “President X”, as this reminds the person of the position they are intended to fill.
. But the area south of Scotland and east of Wales is indeed part of the U.K., and in consequence has a Queen, namely Elizabeth II – who is in that respect Queen of England. (She’s also by the same token Queen of Manitoba, and for that matter Queen of Queensland! ;))