The gunshot-like sound frightened the Court, rattling the nerves of both the justices and the advocates. To ease the tension, Chief Justice Roberts joked “I think we’re… I think it’s safe. It’s a trick they play on new Chief Justices all the time.” His comment drew laughter and relief, but Justice Scalia’s welcoming reply of “Happy Halloween,” brought about even more laughter from the audience and the Court. Not to be outdone, Chief Justice Roberts replied “We’re even more in the dark now than before” (37-38:ln 18-25, ln1-2). While strange occurrences bring about unexpected moments for laughter in the courtroom, Justice Kennedy has relied on the jokes of the famous blue-collar comedian Bill Engvall in oral argument. Mr. Engvall is famous for his narratives in which he recounts encounters with foolish individuals who should wear a sign warning others of their stupidity. After the end of each story he announces “here’s your sign,” confirming an individual’s stupidity. Justice Kennedy once reused one of Mr. Engvall’s signature story noting “recently I lost my luggage, and I had to go to the Lost and Found at the airline, and the lady said has my plane landed yet" (Liptak 12/31/05). We are only missing Mr. Engvall’s tag line “Here’s your sign,” to complete the joke. Finally, newly appointed associate Justice Elena Kagan brings a humorous wit with her to the Court. In her oral arguments, before the Court as Solicitor General, she often drew laughter from the Court and attendees. In United States v. Comstock, General Kagan mistakenly called Justice Scalia "Mr. Chief," but with the same breath wryly corrected herself "excuse me, Justice Scalia — I didn't mean to promote you quite so quickly."
Her comments drew a round of laughter and prompted Chief Justice Roberts to respond "Thanks for thinking it was a promotion," causing Justice Scalia to continue the joking, turning to Chief Justice Roberts and sarcastically remarking "And I'm sure you didn't" (26, ln: 6-14). These comments from the justices clearly offer a lighter side to the Court’s serious nature. Research on humor and laughter spans a wide variety of topics and working environments, but few studies have ever considered the role of humor and laughter at the Supreme Court. This article attempts to turn scholars’ attention towards laughter and humor at the Supreme Court in the hopes that others will expand upon research generated within this study.
The only study to consider laughter in Supreme Court oral arguments was completed by Jay Wexler in 2005 and was titled"LaughTrack." The article was a simple three page study that tracked the number of "(laughter)" notations in the Court’s 2004-2005 oral argument transcripts.
Read the rest of Ryan A. Malphurs article at the Communication Law Review, Volume 10, Issue 2
Pages: 1 · 2
More Articles
- I Remember When
- If The Cup Fits, Wear It
- The Holiday Hustle Hassle
- Who Would I Like to Be?
- Lifelong Pursuits: Hooked on Bridge
- Someone To Watch Over Me ... And My Shoes
- Suddenly Homeless
- Even with Dyed Hair, “Grey Power” Has Taken Root
- New Deal Numerology: Broccoli Roberts
- Losing It: Where Is That Electronic Gadget Hiding?
