The Supreme Court's original jurisdiction case South Carolina v. North Carolina will never, ever be considered a blockbuster. Or even very interesting. Contrast it, in particular, with the Citizens United campaign finance reform case, whose long-awaited decision could well be the one handed down in a special court session convened for Thursday.
But let's pause, for one moment, to appreciate an aspect of the South Carolina v. North Carolina decision handed down Wednesday. That is, the fine, crisp, near-conversational writing style of Chief Justice John Roberts.
Setting aside the jurisprudence, the, you know, point of any decision, Suits & Sentences continues to be a fan of Chief Justice Roberts' writing. It's clear, plainspoken and effective; sometimes, a little extra touch is all it takes.
Consider this modest flourish from Roberts' partial dissent issued Wednesday.
"The result is literally unprecedented: Even though equitable apportionment actions are a significant part of our original docket, this Court has never before granted intervention in such a case to an entity other than a State, the United States, or an Indian tribe. Never."
See that? See how Roberts drives home the point with the reiteration of the word 'never,' hammered in with a potent, one-word sentence. At another point, Roberts runs out an explication and then adds:
"And all this for what?"
This is almost casual, easy on the ear -- and it thereby helps pull the reader along. Nicely done, sir.
Can you explain what "literally unprecedented" means?
Posted by: Lawrence Hurley | January 21, 2010 at 05:14 PM
Which brings up another point regarding use of language: Literally, every time someone uses the word literally, it is incorrect.
Posted by: Mike Doyle | January 21, 2010 at 09:05 PM
It's not necessarily incorrect - perhaps CJ Roberts wanted to distinguish his use of 'unprecedented' as meaning just that, that such a scenario had never occurred until that point, as opposed to the meaning given by colloquial or popular use.
Given his Honour's seemingly casual take on language, such a clarification might be quite useful ...
Posted by: Joe C | January 26, 2010 at 02:39 AM
What I don't understand is that my case District of Colorado 02-cv-1950 got dismissed on the premise that I was a totally incomprehensible writer, so incomprehensible and such gibberish that the defense didn't even need to file motions for more definite statement, but former judge Nottingham wasn't required to file a memorandum or opinion to supplement his dismissal of my claims and wasn't required to state any facts, other than his opinion that I am a bad writer, or find any facts, other than his opinion that I am a bad writer. See D of Colorado 02-cv1950 document 455
I do get excited and emotional and sometimes I make typos but I have all sorts of document evidence and caselaw and statutes and someone on the ABA law blog said I was a good writer.
Posted by: kay sieverding | January 26, 2010 at 07:32 PM