I've noticed at this bankruptcy conference a subtle and pervasive snideness about Congress and the Supreme Court. It takes the form of an almost invisible ironic twist to phrases like, "Congress in its infinite wisdom drafted Section __ so that it reads ______," or, "We now have the benefit of the Supreme Court's wisdom on this subject as manifested in such-and-such a case." It's sort of understood that there's a rolling of the eyes, or an invisible snicker, at the words "the Supreme Court's wisdom" or "Congress decided." It's the friendly scornfulness of the specialist, so pervasive as to be hardly detectable, except for a subtly jeering shade to the tone of voice when a bankruptcy judge or a practitioner says something otherwise respectful like, "It was apparently the considered judgment of Congress that these sections have distinct and different meanings." The response of the audience to this extremely understated irony is equally muted -- no knowing snickers, just a gentle smirking, or a knowing nod of the head. We're in on the joke.
This blog seems to offer an interesting insight into the mind and lifestyle of a US attorney from a wealthy background. I think it is interesting and unusual, in a way, to see what wealthy, yacht-club belonging people think about things. You're different than me, that much is for certain. If nothing else, I can see how upper-class, sort-of liberals can avoid mixing with coloured people without being too obvious.
Posted by: Michael | July 17, 2004 at 05:00 PM
One of our Con Law lecturers always used to say:
"Her Majesty's, ummm, competent ministers" when referring to them. What you wrote reminded me of that.
Posted by: Sherry | July 17, 2004 at 05:26 PM
Often, the use of veiled sarcasm, disrespectful tone, smirks and innuendo, is the coward's way of disagreeing with or disparaging authority without specifically putting one's self on record doing so. Truly courageous members of an honorable, learned profession!
Posted by: David Giacalone | July 18, 2004 at 08:57 AM