Judicial snark: a rare and exquisite vintage

We are used to seeing judges maintain an civility and professionalism, even when they are faced with people most of us would just smack up side the head.

Every once in awhile, they are provoked beyond their ability to restrain themselves. They dish out the snark, in their highbrow way. Its a beautiful thing.

My favorite has got to be Padilla v. Hanft, where Judge Floyd responds to the government's position in words that practically singe the paper. He spells out the government's assertion (namely, that Padilla being arrested in Chicago is equivalent to Mr Hamdan's being captured on the battlefield - and therefore the government can detain him as an enemy combatant) and then deliveres this beauty:

The cogency of this argument eludes the Court.

A recent addition to my top five would have to be the recent response of Judge Walton to the amicus brief filed by Robert Bork and Alan "I love torture" Dershowitz. Bork and Torture-boy (as well as a phalanx of high priced legal talent) are advising the court that they think that the appointment of Patrick Fitzgerald might not be constitutional, and perhaps the judge might throw the whole case out.

It would be very unusual for Judge Walton to refuse the amicus, so he graciously accepts it - in writing.

With a footnote that has so much sarcasm packed into it, it is positively radioactive (emphasis added):

It is an impressive show of public service when twelve prominent and distinguished current and former law professors of well-respected schools are able to amass their collective wisdom in the course of only several days to provide their legal expertise to the Court on behalf of a criminal defendant.

The Court trusts that this is a reflection of these eminent academics' willingness in the future to step to the plate and provide like assistance in cases involving any of the numerous litigants, both in this Court and throughout the courts of our nation, who lack the financial means to fully and properly articulate the merits of their legal positions even in instances where failure to do so could result in monetary penalties, incarceration, or worse.

The Court will certainly not hesitate to call for such assistance from these luminaries, as necessary in the interests of justice and equity, whenever similar questions arise in the cases that come before it.

Translation: "Thank you for playing. Don't let my foot hit you in the ass on the way out of my courtroom."