Snow Day and Legal Humor

We had a snow day yesterday! It is true that school was cancelled, but for a Colorado kid, it hardly felt like a snow day. In my neighborhood, we had less than an inch of snow, but in the north-west, it is not the snow that shuts the city down but the sheet of ice that covers everything. The most dangerous part of my travel outside the apartment yesterday was getting down the stairs in front of my apartment which were also covered in ice. Unlike childhood snow days, I spent most of the days studying. I did take a break to sneak downtown for lunch. The city really was shut down; I have never had such an easy time finding a parking spot. I could have had my pick. So, even without the snowmen, having a snow day was pretty nice.

School is back in session today, and since we are heading toward finals, I will not have many breaks for the next three weeks. You may see more posts like my previous one which consists of video clips I have been viewing as distractions from studying. It is important to keep perspective on this whole process.

If you have been reading for a while, you will know that I have had several posts on the topic of legal humor. My general thoughts on this topic have evolved. I no longer think, as I did during my one-L year, that the law does not have a sense of humor. While it is not necessarily easy or appropriate to compare the law to literature or drama, this does not mean humor is absent. Sure, the law is clearly different. Where literature has a metaphorical affect on human behavior, the law has actual effect. If you are sued and you are found liable at court, you will have to pay. Nothing in literature has this kind of power. However, you will only be paying if you do not win, and because one of the most important aspects of handling a case is making good arguments, humor may very well have a place in your toolbox of argumentative tactics. The use of humorous rhetoric is not just the province of bold and creative trial attorneys; there are even examples in the writings of Supreme Court Justices. No matter how we feel about Justice Scalia's style of constitutional interpretation, he is without a doubt the most colorful justice on the court, and his opinions are often the most entertaining to read. I was reading his dissenting opinion in the law school affirmative action case of Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) when I came across a fine example of his sarcastic humor. The Majority upheld the University of Michigan's use of race as a factor in creating a "critical mass" of diversity in their law school admission decisions. Scalia responded, including this passage:

. . .If it is appropriate for the University of Michigan Law School to use racial discrimination for the purpose of putting together a "critical mass" that will convey generic lessons in socialization and good citizenship, surely it is no less appropriate - indeed, particularly appropriate - for the civil service systems of the State of Michigan to do so. . . . And surely private employers cannot be criticized - indeed, should be praised - if they also "teach" good citizenship to their adult employees through a patriotic, all-American system of racial discrimination in hiring. The non-minority individuals who are deprived of a legal education, a civil service job, or any job at all by reason of their skin color will surely understand"

This use of humor is cutting and its purpose is not necessarily to make you laugh. He uses humor to make his argument, but by using this type of rhetorical tool, he manages to make his argument both more accessable and more enjoyable to read. If you ust ask about any law student, they will most likely tell you that reading an opinion from the Consevertive Scalia is considerably more entertaining and engaging that an opinion by, for example, the former liberal justice William Brennen. Unfortunatly for Brennen, even if you think you agree with him, you may not be entirely sure because you have no idea what he is talking about in his opinions. Humor clearly has a place in the law, and I wish more justices and lawyers infused their rhetoric with it.