3 ms·

A bit off-topic, but after reading this and a few other court decisions (for example in the context of contesting election results), it strikes me that they are

A bit off-topic, but after reading this and a few other court decisions (for example in the context of contesting election results), it strikes me that they are pretty well-written. They provide context for a lay audience, and while their language isn't simple, it is understandable to a non-native speaker like me. Is this usual? or is it that for such cases with high publicity, the courts select judges that are know as good writers?

dragonwriter 6y ago
This is pretty normal. Judicial decisions are, in general (though not all of this applies to every decision) written to be read by people remote from the decision (either in time or otherwise) and be clear, to justify themselves in the case of appeal, to make clear to the parties what the expectations are of them under them, and to make clear to future courts (including the same court) what was determined and why to support proceedings to enforce, modify, etc., the results. There’s an extensive body of specialized knowledge and terminology in the law, and a lot of that comes through making short-hand out of bits of decisions or enactments for the convenience of having brevity in reference, but with decisions clarity, both of results and reasoning, is a pretty big goal.
curryst 6y ago
That's fairly normal. It depends on the judge to a degree, as each has their own writing style, but most tend to write fairly clearly like this. I dated a court clerk and asked about the writing style, and was told that they write that way because the parties have a right to understand the court's opinion. Most judges take that to mean that they should write in a manner that a layperson can understand fairly well, because there are members of both parties that are not lawyers, and their case may end up being cited by a pro se plaintiff or defendant (i.e. they are not represented by a lawyer). > the courts select judges that are know as good writers? These aren't generally written solely by the judge. The judge's clerk will often draft some or all of it, which the judge can then edit or sign off on. The judge may also consult it with other people or judge's if they want or need to.

dragonwriter 6y ago

This is pretty normal. Judicial decisions are, in general (though not all of this applies to every decision) written to be read by people remote from the decision (either in time or otherwise) and be clear, to justify themselves in the case of appeal, to make clear to the parties what the expectations are of them under them, and to make clear to future courts (including the same court) what was determined and why to support proceedings to enforce, modify, etc., the results. There’s an extensive body of specialized knowledge and terminology in the law, and a lot of that comes through making short-hand out of bits of decisions or enactments for the convenience of having brevity in reference, but with decisions clarity, both of results and reasoning, is a pretty big goal.

curryst 6y ago

That's fairly normal. It depends on the judge to a degree, as each has their own writing style, but most tend to write fairly clearly like this. I dated a court clerk and asked about the writing style, and was told that they write that way because the parties have a right to understand the court's opinion. Most judges take that to mean that they should write in a manner that a layperson can understand fairly well, because there are members of both parties that are not lawyers, and their case may end up being cited by a pro se plaintiff or defendant (i.e. they are not represented by a lawyer). > the courts select judges that are know as good writers? These aren't generally written solely by the judge. The judge's clerk will often draft some or all of it, which the judge can then edit or sign off on. The judge may also consult it with other people or judge's if they want or need to.