Resolved: A SC Justice who uses terms like "jiggery-pokery" in his opinions ought to retire

[handsomeharry]

@Boyo_Jim

The issue is he’s spouting like a cranky old man, using terms terms that are meaningless in any legal sence, to cast aspersions at his fellow Justices. IMO, of course.

This is …uh, spouting like a cranky old man…'using terms that are meaningless in any legal sence [sic]…" ??? The word is in most good dictionaries, and got the point across, communication was achieved-what more is lacking to make it ‘meaningful in a legal sense’?
Also, I am inclined to admire a man who uses words that are good words, and have fallen into disuse. There is an elegance to using archaic words, not to mention a sign of having read more than one’s school books, something which is too lacking.

Also, I ran across the phrase ‘jiggery-pokery’ in 2012 (I may have even posted about it on SDMB). It is a good word/phrase and needs to be put back into the vernacular.

[handsomeharry]

@Boyo_Jim

No, it’s not “colorful”. His comments are personal insults against other parties involved in the cases, in many cases the other justices. And they are also accusations of ethics violations as well. He often accuses them of stretching their interpretations of the law to and beyond the breaking point in order to justify the outcomes that they want, regardless of the merits of the cases.

Yes, it is colorful. They are not accusations of ethics violations.
Get the facts straight. Just because you’re all het up about it, doesn’t mean that he is doing anything wrong, and that a colorful word *isn’t *colorful.

[Acsenray]

He’s not being colorful. He’s very clearly calling his colleagues bad judges, and in his language he routinely accuses them of either being stupid or disingenuous. It’s not even disguised. It’s straight out insulting.

[Boyo_Jim]

@handsomeharry

Yes, it is colorful. They are not accusations of ethics violations.
Get the facts straight. Just because you’re all het up about it, doesn’t mean that he is doing anything wrong, and that a colorful word *isn’t *colorful.

Okay, you’re half right. I misspoke. His language is indeed colorful. He uses his colorful language to attack his colleagues and other parties to the cases the court hears, to question their mental skills, motives, or ethics. Instead of an reasoned explanation of the flaws he sees in the other arguments, he will often simply dismiss the arguments and the people making them with a very colorful insult.

[doorhinge]

@Boyo_Jim

I guess you don’t understand that this language was used in a dissent, and they wouldn’t have discussed this language at all as a group, as his use of it was directed at the perceived mental inadequacies of his fellow justices.

(cough) Horseshit! (cough). Of course the Supremes would have discussed both the pros, cons, and legal issues of the cases before them. That’s what their closed-door session are for. :smack: I’m not aware of any politically-correct, language-police rules, that restricts what the Supremes can, or can not, say to each other. Of course, you, and the pundits, are free to make assumptions about the words the Supremes may use, and you can add any spin you wish to the words of the Supremes.

Assuming the Supremes aren’t delivering yet another unanimous decision, someone is chosen from the majority to write the opinion of the court, and someone is chosen from the dissenters to write the dissent. How could the Supremes possibly know that there were dissenting opinions IF THEY HADN’T DISCUSSED THE ISSUES? :smack:

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

No, that’s nonsense. The other justices often say things like “the majority has made a mistake today,” or “the dissent fails to recognize that…” Scalia is far less civil in his prose, win or lose.

Here are some examples a few decades ago that turned up in a brief search:

The minority justices — Blackmun, Brennan, Marshall and Stevens — produced dissents marked by unusually harsh language.

In the Wards Cove civil rights case, Blackmun wrote, “One wonders whether the majority still believes that race discrimination — or, more accurately, race discrimination against non-whites — is a problem in our society, or even remembers that it ever was.”

But Blackmun, who was appointed by President Nixon in 1970, saved his greatest wrath for the last case of the term, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services.

As a plurality effectively gutted the decision he wrote in the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade case, Blackmun responded that he had never seen justices go about their business “in such a deceptive fashion.”

“By refusing to explain or to justify its proposed revolutionary revision in the law of abortion, and by refusing to abide not only by our precedents, but also by our canons for reconsidering those precedents, the plurality invites charges of cowardice and illegitimacy to our door.

“I cannot say that these would be undeserved.”

Not quite as fun to quote as Scalia’s writing, but equally harsh if not more so.

Erwin Chemerinsky is not “of the LA Times” (as you would know if you had actually opened the article). The thing about op-eds is that they are written by people who don’t work for the publication.

He’s the dean of the UC Irvine law school and pretty broadly agreed to be the nation’s foremost constitutional law scholar. His Constitutional Law is pretty much the default textbook for law school classes on the topic. He’s the second most widely cited law professor in the country. He’s also argued dozens of cases before SCOTUS. In short, the Supremes certainly care what he thinks.

A pretty distinguished and accomplished legal scholar. But also a pretty solid left-winger, and this might be coloring his views here.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

It is certainly true that other justices have said unpleasant things in the past. Scalia, however, does it as a matter of course. It should be noted that this is a fairly new thing; in the past, he only did it in cases which offended his social views, like Lawrence v. Texas.

As for Chemerinsky, he’s certainly a left-winger. Most law professors are. But doorhinge, who never met an argument he wasn’t ready to misunderstand, seems to think he’s some journo for the LA Times. Anyway, I very much doubt Chemerinsky’s politics color his views on Scalia’s language. He’s been pointing out Scalia’s lack of civility for years, but never made similar complaints about Rehnquist, Thomas, Roberts, or any other conservative.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

It is certainly true that other justices have said unpleasant things in the past. Scalia, however, does it as a matter of course. It should be noted that this is a fairly new thing; in the past, he only did it in cases which offended his social views, like Lawrence v. Texas.

I don’t know. There have been some pretty high profile cases lately and this might be skewing things.

As for Chemerinsky, he’s certainly a left-winger. Most law professors are. But doorhinge, who never met an argument he wasn’t ready to misunderstand, seems to think he’s some journo for the LA Times. Anyway, I very much doubt Chemerinsky’s politics color his views on Scalia’s language. He’s been pointing out Scalia’s lack of civility for years, but never made similar complaints about Rehnquist, Thomas, Roberts, or any other conservative.

Because that’s not the point of attack against those people. It is with Scalia.

How harsh someone’s language is is a pretty subjective matter, and it’s hard to imagine that judgment of it is not influenced by ideological affinity.

(I could be wrong, but ISTM - based on his Wiki page - that Chemerinsky is more LW than even most law professors.)

[Boyo_Jim]

@doorhinge

(cough) Horseshit! (cough). Of course the Supremes would have discussed both the pros, cons, and legal issues of the cases before them. That’s what their closed-door session are for. :smack: I’m not aware of any politically-correct, language-police rules, that restricts what the Supremes can, or can not, say to each other. Of course, you, and the pundits, are free to make assumptions about the words the Supremes may use, and you can add any spin you wish to the words of the Supremes.

Assuming the Supremes aren’t delivering yet another unanimous decision, someone is chosen from the majority to write the opinion of the court, and someone is chosen from the dissenters to write the dissent. How could the Supremes possibly know that there were dissenting opinions IF THEY HADN’T DISCUSSED THE ISSUES? :smack:

They would not have discussed the language he chose for HIS DISSENT, though he might have used some of it on them during the general discussion of the case.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

I could be wrong, but ISTM - based on his Wiki page - that Chemerinsky is more LW than even most law professors.

In his personal life, perhaps, but his legal philosophy is pretty moderate, which is why his textbooks are so popular.

Because that’s not the point of attack against those people. It is with Scalia.

The “point of attack” with Scalia is not his language. It’s that he’s a colossal hypocrite, demanding absolute purity in constitutional interpretation in some contexts and not mentioning it at all in others. I am quite sure Chemerinsky really is concerned about the impact of Scalia’s language on law students, because the bar really is a collegial place* and there’s really no place for those attacks within it.

*Well, except in South Florida. Those guys are assholes.

[doorhinge]

@Acsenray

He’s not being colorful. He’s very clearly calling his colleagues bad judges, and in his language he routinely accuses them of either being stupid or disingenuous. It’s not even disguised. It’s straight out insulting.

You can call it insulting. Pundits can call it insulting. But do the other Supremes call it insulting? If people are going to speak for the Supremes, the least they could do is ask the other Supremes what their opinions of each other actually are. Or not.

[ElvisL1ves]

Whether it’s insulting or not, to fellow Justices used to his bluster, isn’t really the point. A dissent is supposed to record alternate reasoning that the majority did not find persuasive, or perhaps even consider, in the hope of convincing future courts to bend in that direction in future cases. Calling the majority poopyheads does not do that.

[doorhinge]

@Boyo_Jim

They would not have discussed the language he chose for HIS DISSENT, though he might have used some of it on them during the general discussion of the case.

(Underline added)

Really? And you can prove this? You can prove that the Supremes did NOT discuss a dissent. That they did not discuss the language of the other Supremes? Who told you this?

[doorhinge]

@ElvisL1ves

Whether it’s insulting or not, to fellow Justices used to his bluster, isn’t really the point.

(post shortened)

Did you read the OP?

Thread: Resolved: A SC Justice who uses terms like “jiggery-pokery” in his opinions ought to retire

Whether it’s insulting or not, to fellow Justices used to his bluster, really is the point.

[YogSothoth]

I want Scalia to retire but for completely different reasons. In fact, the only way I can stomach to listen his idiotic partisan rants is if he puts in words like jiggery-pokery or argle-bargle. It makes him seem like a senile old grampa instead of a lucid old shithead