The 2008 Supreme Court Term: A Humor Roundup

The producer in charge of covering the Supreme Court for Fox News has written a very enjoyable column in the Weekly Standard. N.B. I don't read that rag on a regular basis (Bill Kristol can kiss my ass), so I must give a hat-tip to the good folks over at How Appealing.

Anyways, this article looks at some of the best examples of humor - from the justices and the lawyers - of this most current term. You really should click through and read it. I will merely reprint what I thought was the funniest exchange:

It is fair to say that the justices probably don't enter the courtroom with the express purpose of cracking jokes. But it does seem that Justice John Paul Stevens had his final question planned for the end of an argument that included considerable discussion of a decision the Court made in 1990.

Justice Stevens: One last question: We disagreed on parts of the Irwin opinion, but I take it you would agree with me that the government was particularly well represented in that case, wouldn't you? (Laughter.)

Mr. Stewart: The government could not have been better represented, Your Honor. (Laughter.)

Chief Justice Roberts: It is hard to understand how they could have lost the case. (Laughter.)

The reason for all of that laughter? Roberts was the government lawyer who argued and lost that case 18 years ago.