I don't associate laws and legalities to be the domains of good writing.
But good writing is liquid in that it seeps through.
Today's health care judgement by the US Supreme Court has a few instances of it.
Here's one I liked:
In 3 relatively quick sentences, the passage comments on the constitutional responsibilities of the court, the legislature and the people.
That's pretty impressive.
Perhaps, the most famous of example of judicial good writing is this:
It's from a 1924 judgement in England in which the dangerous driving conviction of a motorcyclist was quashed because the court clerk, who was also prosecuting the motorcyclist in a civil case, had retired with the judges while they deliberated his eventual conviction.
But good writing is liquid in that it seeps through.
Today's health care judgement by the US Supreme Court has a few instances of it.
Here's one I liked:
Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.
That's pretty impressive.
Perhaps, the most famous of example of judicial good writing is this:
...it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.
It's from a 1924 judgement in England in which the dangerous driving conviction of a motorcyclist was quashed because the court clerk, who was also prosecuting the motorcyclist in a civil case, had retired with the judges while they deliberated his eventual conviction.
No comments:
Post a Comment