|
...and I like it.
I've been a debater all through high school and some in college (I hate CX though), and I've always been interested in law and how they resolve and word their arguments. One such argument was resolved by the Supreme Court not long ago, in FCC vs AT&T.
The actual opinion of the court can be found here. The bullet points of the case are like this:
1) AT&T got investigated by the FCC for breaking some rule and the FCC and FBI gathered a bunch of evidence.
2) AT&T's rivals filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the FCC and FBI for some of those records pertaining to sales and some employee particulars and the like.
3) AT&T sued to protect its information, saying it was protected under the 7th exemption, that excludes information obtained by law enforcement that “could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”
4) The real issue that arose from this case was whether or not corporations, who are legally "persons" as defined by the law, are allowed "personal privacy".
The Supreme Court ruled against them, contending that "personal" is not lexicographically the same thing as a "person" and that the wording of the statute otherwise does not imply that corporations should be held to the same standard. The punch line came in the last paragraph of the opinion:
"We reject the argument that because “person” is defined for purposes of FOIA to include a corporation, the phrase “personal privacy” in Exemption 7(C) reaches corporations as well. The protection in FOIA against disclosure of law enforcement information on the ground that it would
constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy does not extend to corporations. We trust that AT&T will not take it personally."
BADUM TISH.
I'm not a law student, so I don't pore over legal documents and Supreme Court opinions all day, I'm a hobbyist at best, but I found this really funny. Among the dry legalese that makes up so much of our legal documents, there can sometimes still be a spark of humor that reminds us that these are all written by people and not mindless decision-dispensing robots.
Yeah, it's a helluva lot of work to get to a simple pun, but I think it's a fun reminder that our high justices are still human.
 
|
|
|
There's a lot of humor and personality that go into different opinions. It's also a matter of writing style. Scalia in particular is known for his more fiery writing and occasional witticisms.
But you have to remember, many opinions seem "dry" not because the Justices are robots, but because they understand what they do is serious. Many of their cases deal with real people's lives and livelihoods. In that circumstance, you have to be careful about when it's appropriate to be flippant.
This is not just a piece of writing done for fun or in a set-up debate. It's something that affects actual people.
|
On March 23 2011 03:40 Slow Motion wrote:
There's a lot of humor and personality that go into different opinions. It's also a matter of writing style. Scalia in particular is known for his more fiery writing and occasional witticisms.
But you have to remember, many opinions seem "dry" not because the Justices are robots, but because they understand what they do is serious. Many of their cases deal with real people's lives and livelihoods. In that circumstance, you have to be careful about when it's appropriate to be flippant.
This is not just a piece of writing done for fun or in a set-up debate. It's something that affects actual people.
I'm well aware of that. But to the average person who reads them, it can seem like a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo wrapped in pretentious ceremony. I know that's how I thought about it before I started getting into it, and I know a lot of my friends think that way. My point was that people perceive them as such, it doesn't make it true, and finding a bit of humor amongst the seriousness is always a welcome sign.
|
|
|
Pretty amusing. Glad you shared.
|
This is not just a piece of writing done for fun or in a set-up debate. It's something that affects actual people.
Look what you did there!
BADUM TISH!
|
On March 23 2011 03:11 deth2munkies wrote:
Among the dry legalese that makes up so much of our legal documents, there can sometimes still be a spark of humor that reminds us that these are all written by people and not mindless decision-dispensing robots.
There's a reason why a lot of SCOTUS decisions end up 5-4. That's a testament in itself to show that the Justices of the Court have an inherent personal bias when it comes to some controversial issues. The "dry legalese" is just a means to an end in a lot of cases. The beauty of American jurisprudence is that it is flexible enough to allow a decision to tip one way or another. It's no wonder that the market for legal services in the US is a (two or three) hundred billion dollar industry.
|
On March 23 2011 03:51 deth2munkies wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2011 03:40 Slow Motion wrote:
There's a lot of humor and personality that go into different opinions. It's also a matter of writing style. Scalia in particular is known for his more fiery writing and occasional witticisms.
But you have to remember, many opinions seem "dry" not because the Justices are robots, but because they understand what they do is serious. Many of their cases deal with real people's lives and livelihoods. In that circumstance, you have to be careful about when it's appropriate to be flippant.
This is not just a piece of writing done for fun or in a set-up debate. It's something that affects actual people. I'm well aware of that. But to the average person who reads them, it can seem like a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo wrapped in pretentious ceremony. I know that's how I thought about it before I started getting into it, and I know a lot of my friends think that way. My point was that people perceive them as such, it doesn't make it true, and finding a bit of humor amongst the seriousness is always a welcome sign.
Well I agree that finding humor in some opinions is always welcome and can refresh your attention. I don't agree that very dry and technical opinions are pretentious. In fact, I think it's the other way around. Personally, I like to crack a lot of jokes and have a sort of sarcastic, dynamic style to my writing. I just don't always find that sort of style useful in my legal writing, and a good rule is if it's useless then get rid of it).
The difference with legal writing, however, is that it's not about you. From a lawyer's perspective, it's all about the client. In some sense, you are obligated do suppress a certain amount of style if it doesn't serve your client's interests. There are times when I feel proud of a certain turn of phrase or a particularly passionate paragraph. However, you have to ask yourself for every word you use: how does this help my client.
If your clever writing doesn't help the client, then it is pretentious and self-serving to leave it in. This in my opinion is different from other types of writing or even debate because those things ARE about expressing yourself. Legal writing, however, is more about trying to achieve a specific task for someone else. I don't think it's right to let anything get in the way of that, especially a desire to express your own personality or intelligence.
(I'm just very interested in this topic because I find it is kind of an art in itself in legal writing to preserve a certain personal writing style you are comfortable with while always trying to not let style trump function. It's something I'm always working on personally.)
|
Unexpected from a professional viewpoint but thats a upper cut to AT&T. 
|
|
|
Wow, that's pretty hilarious. Such an amusing statement from the Supreme Court.
|
Made me smile
|
Austin10831 Posts
|
lol some of those are really good =D
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
