
So I was not happy to learn that Scott is severely curtailing his blogging efforts. I understand his reasons and accept his logic for cutting back but I will miss my daily Scott Adams post.
OBSERVATIONS, THOUGHTS, OCCASIONAL RANTS, THINGS I FIND INTERESTING AND ANYTHING ELSE THAT I FEEL MOVED TO SHARE OR COMMENT ON - SOMETIMES THEY MAY EVEN INVOLVE THE LAW, LAWYERS, OR THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM.
Although the Court Reporter continues generally to use the phrase “(Laughter)” to indicate courtroom hilarity, this past March the Reporter suddenly started to vary the formulation. Following a wisecrack from Justice Roberts in an argument on March 19, the transcript reads “(A little laughter.).” A week later, the courtroom apparently experienced “(Some laughter.)” after a joke from Scalia. What’s next? “(Knee-slapping guffaws)”? “(Some peeing in pants)”? The Reporter’s actions would appear to be a direct response to the study, which complained that the transcript “does not distinguish between types of laughter, either in terms of duration or intensity.” It may seem a small change, but for those who care deeply about Supreme Court humor, the importance of the Reporter’s innovation cannot be overstated.