Posted by Eugene Volokh:
Humor and Wit in Supreme Court Opinions:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_05_01-2005_05_07.shtml#1115226911
Can you think of deliberately amusing or witty -- in the sense of
trying to get the reader to smile, even if not to guffaw -- passages
from Supreme Court opinions? Here's one that I remember, from Justice
Stevens' concurrence in [1]Widmar v. Vincent (1980) (paragraph break
added):
Because every university's resources are limited, an educational
institution must routinely make decisions concerning the use of the
time and space that is available for extracurricular activities. In
my judgment, it is both necessary and appropriate for those
decisions to evaluate the content of a proposed student activity.
I should think it obvious, for example, that if two groups of 25
students requested the use of a room at a particular time -- one to
view Mickey Mouse cartoons and the other to rehearse an amateur
performance of Hamlet -- the First Amendment would not require that
the room he reserved for the group that submitted its application
first. Nor do I see why a university should have to establish a
"compelling state interest" to defend its decision to permit one
group to use the facility and not the other. In my opinion, a
university should be allowed to decide for itself whether a program
that illuminates the genius of Walt Disney should be given
precedence over one that may duplicate material adequately covered
in the classroom.
I take it that Justice Stevens isn't just trying to provide an
illustration of a permissible content-based restriction; rather, the
surprising outcome of the Mickey Mouse vs. Hamlet comparison, under
which Mickey comes out the winner, is meant as a little throwaway
element of levity. Again, not occasion for belly laughs, but I think
it qualifies as humor.
Please post other such examples to the thread, but please follow these
rules:
1. Please limit yourself to opinions in Supreme Court cases.
2. Please limit yourself to quotes that are funny or at least
amusing; if they're serious, it doesn't matter how eloquent they
may be. Sarcasm is a hard case, because it is a form of wit and
has some connections to humor; but I'd say that not all sarcasm
qualifies, and the point must be to get at least some readers to
crack something of a smile.
3. Please check other comments first, to make sure that you aren't
duplicating something that someone else has already posted.
4. Please include the literal quotes (for instance, from [2]the
materials on findlaw), rather than just working from vague
memories.
Also, please feel free to let others who might be interested know
about this -- I'd like to get as comprehensive a list as possible.
Thanks!
References
1.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=454&invol=263
2. http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://highsorcery.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
