Supreme Court Jesters

The results regarding the individual members of the Supreme Court are in. Antonin Scalia got a 77, and Clarence Thomas got a woeful 0. This was not a ranking about how competent the Washington Nine was. It's a ranking of how funny they are in court.

The statistics were computed by Boston University law professor Jay D. Wexler. According to transcripts, Scalia got 77 official laughs during the court proceedings in the 2004-2005 sessions. He was followed by Breyer with 45, Kennedy with 21, Souter with 19, the late William Rehnquist with 12, Stevens with 8, O'Connor with 7, Ginsburg with 4 and Thomas with 0. This was obviously an informal study filled with possible flaws, and there are very few conclusions we can draw about the justices based on their sense of humor. Personally, I've always found that people who make other people laugh are of extremely high intelligence. But there might even be flaws in that conclusion.

What is obvious is that having a sense of humor and making colleagues laugh is a part of being a Supreme Court justice. Only laughs that were heard while court was in session were counted. So, don't bother going back to 2000 to see how many times the conservative justices laughed after one of them suggested, "You mean we get to decide the election?!" What we're talking about here is the ability to take one's self a little less seriously. We're talking about loosening up the other eight so everyone can relax and get on with the serious business of deciding things that may determine the course of history.

The good news about this study is that it comes out right before Samuel Alito faces his confirmation hearings. Until now, Alito has been having practice rehearsal hearings called "murder boards" where those who want him to pass muster ask him hard questions. I have a feeling there's not a lot of humor in something called "murder boards." Well, that's obviously a mistake, and those Republican lawyers pretending to be senators should throw in some opportunities for Alito to get a few laughs. Give him some joke tutoring.

When asked, "Why did you take such a conservative approach to the Constitution during the Reagan administration?" Alito could reply, "Conservative? Are you kidding? During the Reagan administration, anybody who didn't believe in the Monarchy was considered a liberal."

When asked, "Do you think a woman should be in charge of her own body?" he might deflect the topic by saying, "They always are when I'm with them."

The most interesting thing about the study is that humor cuts across ideological lines. You can't say conservatives as a rule crack more jokes than moderates or liberals. It's obviously an individual thing. And I salute Justice Scalia for getting the most laughs. These men and women can do their very serious business and still laugh now and then. It makes them human.

The problem is now that the justices know that people are counting the laughs, they're probably going to become competitive. They're going to feel pressure to get the most laughs. They'll be tempted to bring comic props into the Court. I'm all for freedom of expression, but I really don't want to have Supreme Court justices sneaking Silly String and whoopee cushions under their robes. So, justices, please limit the jokes to verbal ones.

That should be challenge enough. Obviously, Clarence Thomas has the biggest motivation to increase his laugh quotient. How would you like to be known as the guy who's not as funny as Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

But they'll all try to top each other. If Souter gets off a quip about Eminent Domain, Stevens will probably jump in with some rabbi-minister-priest joke about oil rights. Soon, there won't just be dissenting opinions, there will be comedy opinions. Instead of just hiring law clerks, they'll probably hire comedy writers. And to that I say to the ladies and gentlemen of the Court, you know where you can find me.