Wednesday, January 19, 2022

A lesson in civility from the U.S. Supreme Court

Everyone saw the headlines. The Rolling Stone headline was particularly pungent: "Neil Gorsuch Stands Up for His Right to Endanger Sonia Sotomayor’s Health." Charlie Meyerson's Chicago Public Square newsletter linked to Nina Totenberg's January 18 story, "Gorsuch didn't mask despite Sotomayor's COVID worries, leading her to telework," the story that started it all, before citing to the Urban Dictionary's definition of "maskhole."

Without a fresh angle, there was no reason for FWIW to jump in on a story, even about judges, that was being done to death. I struggled for awhile before one came to me: The courts are always preaching at us about civility. We must be civil to our brothers and sisters at the bar, civil to unrepresented litigants, civil to court staff, and, of course, especially civil to the judges. But... *stepping on soapbox*... how can we be criticized for our many failures when persons at the very apex of the legal profession can not be civil to one another....

Oh, yeah. I was working myself into a state of high dudgeon, which is like low dudgeon, only there's a risk of nose bleed.

But there was a problem: Click on that Rolling Stone link now and you'll see this inserted:

Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch released a joint statement on Wednesday pushing back on a report that Sotomayor worked remotely because Gorsuch refused to wear a Covid-19 mask. "Reporting that Justice Sotomayor asked Justice Gorsuch to wear a mask surprised us. It is false," the statement read. "While we may sometimes disagree about the law, we are warm colleagues and friends."

Here's the Tweet from @SCOTUSblog:

There was a major hole in that statement, and the Twitterati were quick to point it out: NPR did not say that Sotomayor asked Gorsuch to mask up; supposedly, that request came from Chief Justice Roberts.

(Apparently, even justices of the United States Supreme Court have diminished comprehension when reading online. And yet, the legal profession marches ever deeper into the realm of efiling. Makes you think, doesn't it? No? Well, it should.)

So the Supreme Court issued another statement, this one from Roberts:

The focus in this brouhaha has been on Gorsuch. But Marcia Coyle reports this afternoon on Law.com, in an article entitled, "Chief Justice Roberts Denies Asking Gorsuch to Wear a Mask," that Gorsuch was not always the only unmasked person in the courtroom:

Sotomayor has worn a mask on the bench since the high court’s return to in-person arguments in October. While it may be coincidental with the rise of the omicron variant, she has participated in arguments telephonically from her chambers during the two-week January argument session. The other justices, with the exception of Gorsuch, began wearing masks on the bench during this month’s arguments.

Even some of the masked justices have at times during arguments removed their masks to ask questions. And since October, some advocates at the court’s lectern have not worn masks while arguing. Many advocates describe the distance between the bench and the lectern as little more than outstretched handshake between them and the chief justice.

I don't know that anyone can make a Justice of the United States Supreme Court do much of anything when he or she is not inclined to do it. But you would think that, if masking were a serious concern for the Court as an institution, they could make counsel wear masks throughout the proceedings. However, Coyle raises a valid question: "Why isn’t Gorsuch wearing a mask like his other colleagues?" Especially to help out a warm colleague and friend....

Still, it is heartening to see that the Supreme Court is concerned about projecting an image of being above the political fray, despite the attempts of so many people to drag it down into the hyperpartisan hellscape on which our public 'discourse' is too often otherwise conducted. The Court is teaching by example: Civility is important. And necessary to the continued viability of our cherished institutions.

(But, Neil, a word of advice here? Wear a mask. As the nuns used to tell me, offer it up, if it makes you feel better.)

1 comment:

  1. I did hear that she spends a lot of time in Chambers alone--like she did last week--because she is a diabetic and is quite frightened of being exposed to Covid. And, as you point out, the mysterious new variant was out there. The fact that they all came out and denied the story, and that other reporters can't find anyone to confirm Totenberg's version (yet), makes me side with the majority!

    ReplyDelete

Anonymous comments are once again permitted on this blog but, for crying out loud, please be civil. Comment moderation remains in effect. The management reserves its right to refuse to publish comments.