Judges Must Stop Writing For 'Cheerleading You Get From Twitter,' Judge Tells Crowd Of Twitter Cheerleaders
A noble attempt, but probably lost on this crowd.
Judge Stephanos Bibas of the Third Circuit warned a Harvard Law School crowd that some of his colleagues on the federal bench spend too much time writing “show off” opinions designed to appeal to “the kind of cheerleading you get from Twitter,” which “is really dangerous.”
Presumably at least one of his Harvard Federalist Society audience stopped trolling trans kids and asking their trust fund administrator to authorize an $8/month blue checkmark allowance to realize that they’re the very Twitter mob Judge Bibas warned them about.
But probably not.
AI’s Impact On Law Firms Of Every Size
After calling for judges to deliver clear and succinct writing to better inform the citizenry — no word on where the shadow docket plays into that — Judge Bibas had choice words for colleagues who spice up 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 be noticed,” Bibas said. “‘Look at me, look at me, I’m so cool.’ That is not authoritative. It is even disrespectful.”
It’s certainly disrespectful in the context of a criminal matter where someone’s life and liberty hangs in the balance. But it’s short-sighted to dismiss the role jokes and pop culture play in common vernacular. If the goal of judicial writing is to deliver legal reasoning to the citizenry, cutting these devices out of the equation seems counterproductive. When Justice Kagan lays down a good Dr. Seuss citation, it resonates with the public.
On the other hand, judges using their opinions to appeal to the lowest common denominator — which sadly includes the folks behind future judicial appointments — present a more disturbing scenario than judges dropping an occasional Game of Thrones joke. When Judge Bibas flags “the judge’s ambitions,” he doesn’t harbor any illusions that a future president plans to hand a SCOTUS seat to the sickest South Park reference in a circuit opinion. The admonition more squarely targets judges like fellow Trump nominee Lawrence VanDyke of the Ninth Circuit, an ABA non-qualified judge foisted on the bench off the Federalist Society’s shortlist, who delights in dissents branding his peers as criminals with a “rap sheet” and “possessed.” Or maybe Judge James Ho, a jurist so desperate to claw his way to the top of a future GOP president’s attention that he’s using flowery opinions to invent new legal standards about how the inadequacy of “earthly rewards” transform every wingnut religious claim into an irreparable harm. These are the judges that need a reminder not to write with an eye toward lighting up Oath Keeper Twitter.
Sponsored
Generative AI In Legal Work — What’s Fact And What’s Fiction?
How Transactional Lawyers Can Better Serve (And Maintain) Their Clients
Law Firms Now Have A Choice In Their Document Comparison Software
Generative AI In Legal Work — What’s Fact And What’s Fiction?
It’s about writing for posterity not horse posteriors as one might say.
Unfortunately, the gathered crowd of Federalist Society faithful at Harvard may be the audience most eager to join Judge Ho’s thirsty bid for attention — especially now that Ho’s Yale Law School publicity stunt affords Harvard graduates a leg up.
Maybe that was the sly purpose of this presentation: to walk into the belly of the trolling beast and warn the assembled crowd to stop cheering on right-wing hacks showboating for MAGA applause. Nonetheless, at least someone in that room will be drafting that Twitter-catering opinion in a couple of years.
If Twitter is still relevant by then.
‘Judges gone wild’: Trump-appointed judge says too many write for Twitter [Reuters]
Sponsored
The Business Case For AI At Your Law Firm
AI’s Impact On Law Firms Of Every Size
Earlier: ‘Read The Opinion’ Urges Supreme Court Justice Constantly Ruling Without Written Opinions
This Citation By Justice Kagan Looks A Little Bit Fishy
Vaccine Mandate Dissent Spits Hot Fire For 53 Pages
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.
