Judges Must Stop Writing For ‘Cheerleading You Get From Twitter,’ Judge Tells Crowd Of Twitter Cheerleaders

Third Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas warned a Harvard Law School crowd that some of his colleagues at the federal bank spend a lot of time writing “exhibition” opinions designed to appeal to “the kind of cheering you get from Twitter,” which ” it’s really dangerous.”

Presumably, at least one of your Harvard Federalist Society audience has stopped trolling trans kids and asking the trust fund administrator to authorize an $8/month blue checkmark subsidy to realize they are the same Twitter mob. about which Judge Bibas warned them.

After asking the judges to deliver clear, succinct wording to better inform citizens – no word on where the docket fits into this – Judge Bibas had choice words for colleagues who pepper their work with jokes and pop culture references:

“For the show off, it seems to be all about the judge’s musings, even the judge’s ambitions to get noticed,” said Bibas. “‘Look at me, look at me, I’m so cool.’ That’s not authoritative. It’s even disrespectful.”

It is certainly disrespectful in the context of a criminal matter where one’s life and liberty are at stake. But it is shortsighted to dismiss the role that jokes and pop culture play in the common vernacular. If the purpose of judicial writing is to provide legal reasoning to citizens, eliminating these devices from the equation seems counterproductive. When Justice Kagan establishes a good quote from Dr. Seuss, she resonates with the audience.

On the other hand, judges who use their opinions to appeal to the lowest common denominator — which unfortunately includes the people behind future court appointments — present a more disturbing scenario than judges dropping the occasional Game of Thrones joke. When Judge Bibas flags “the judge’s ambitions,” he harbors no illusions that a future president plans to hand over a SCOTUS chair to the sickest South Park reference in a circuit opinion. The warning is aimed more directly at judges like fellow Trump candidate Lawrence VanDyke of the Ninth Circuit, an unqualified ABA judge foisted on the Federalist Society shortlist bench, who delights in dissidents branding their peers as criminals with a “rap sheet”. ” and “possessed.” Or maybe Judge James Ho, a jurist so desperate to win the attention of a future GOP president that he’s using flowery opinions to invent new legal standards about how the inadequacy of “earthly rewards” turns every wacky religious claim into an irreparable predicament. . loss. These are the judges who need a reminder not to write in order to light up the Oath Keeper’s Twitter.

It is about writing for posterity, not for later horses, as one might say.

Unfortunately, the gathered crowd of Federalist Society loyalists at Harvard may be the audience most eager to join Judge Ho’s thirsty attempt at attention — especially now that Ho’s publicity stunt at Yale Law School gives Harvard graduates an advantage.

Perhaps that was the cunning purpose of this presentation: to get into the belly of the trolling beast and warn the gathered crowd to stop rooting for right-wing hacks flaunting themselves to MAGA’s cheers. However, at least someone in that room will be writing this opinion on Twitter in a few years.

If Twitter is still relevant until then.

‘Judges gone mad’: Trump-appointed judge says many write to Twitter [Reuters]

Previously: ‘Read the Opinion’ Asks Supreme Court to Constantly Decide Without Written Opinions

Joe Patrice is senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email tips, questions or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics and a good dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as the managing director of RPN Executive Search.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

RSS
LinkedIn
Share
WhatsApp