(The Return of) Ignatz, by Sam Heldman
Thursday, January 06, 2005
grumpy about judgesEvery blogger knows the rule of thumb, “don’t blog when you’re drunk.” (Some violate it well). I think that I will also try, “don’t blog when you’re grumpy,” and so will not post the long rant I just wrote. It was about judges or law clerks who write irrelevant things in opinions, for fun or for other purposes. See, e.g., Knievel v. ESPN (pdf, 9th Circuit the other day); Hunter v. Sec’y, Fla. DOC (pdf, 11th Circuit yesterday). You can fill in the grumpiness yourself. (Why grumpy? Woken up at four.)
posted by sam 7:34 AM4 comments
4 Comments:
Someday, please, someday, let me write the opinion in Boston Baseball Corporation v. New York Yankees...
Jeez, in the ESPN case it's kind of funny, but what sort of illness is the clerk who wrote the Hunter opinion suffering from? Why the hell would we want to read that shit? What possible purpose is served...?
Yeah, that Hunter thing is pretty weird, huh? Somebody trying to write like a noir detective novel and tug at your heartstrings at the same time, and why? To say, "I'd do whatever I could to keep this guy on death row, regardless of the nuances of the law, so there"? Or "You liberal wimps ought to favor the death penalty, so let me show you had bad human behavior can be, in order to try to convince you"?
Should offend any decent lawyer... "here's a bunch of factual stuff, blah blah blah. So today we are faced with a purely procedural question..." OK, so why'd you waste my time with the facts?? Ah, but if only my legal writing TA could get a court clerkship, she'd clean up this mess in no time flat.
