The above poster may have overstated it slightly; the judge's response had a bit more to it that makes it less of a slap.
"Okay. The public will read what you just said.
I'm sorry, but the public's right to know what goes on in the federal courts is more important than the newspapers beating up on you in the press."
Which is absolutely true, and more than anything you can read it as cautionary from the judge. The Lawyer is trying really hard to draw attention away from what's going on and the Judge is outright saying the freedom of press and right of the public to know is more important than the case getting slammed.
It's not bias, and it's really not unprofessional either. Most of the transcripts I've taken the time to read, Judges usually do have a slight sarcastic side to them when Lawyers or participants in the court do unusual or silly things, but it's always framed around the work.
Sometimes judges lose it - true, but that's why why we have the stenographers.
In this case, the lawyer was trying to make a really silly play to garner sympathy for their client, and the judge called them out on in.
> Sometimes judges lose it - true, but that's why why we have the stenographers.
If you have time to kill, an outrageously funny example of a judge losing it is "State of Georgia vs. Rick Allen"[1]. If you prefer watching a video to reading a court transcript, there is a word-for-word Rick & Morty reenactment on YouTube[2]
Agree that it was a ridiculous request by the lawyers, ... surely they've heard of the Streisand effect.
But I think GP wanted to say that even if we agree with what the judge said, it might benefit the defendant on the appeal if they can show this judge was not impartial in some way.
Wonder if this is ever used as a technique - if judges are not impartial, then bait them into showing it on the record so to speak.
Accusing a judge of not being impartial is a non-starter, but improper comments can be a basis for a larger "abuse of discretion" argument. The idea is that a discretionary decision can be overturned on appeal if it's not within the range of reasonable decisions in that situation. So if the judge said "well that's a stupid argument," at the hearing before the lawyer had presented, and the argument was actually good, you might throw that quote in from the transcript to argue that the judge glossed over the merits of your argument instead of giving it serious consideration. Not "she's biased" but "she just didn't give this enough thought."
Of course you'd never piss off the judge hoping to get a negative reaction. The appeal is 95% decided on the basis of the judge's written opinion, and your appellate briefs. If the judge ignored a good argument you made, it'll be apparent. And if it's a close call, the appellate court will show deference to the judge.
This is judge Aslup. The same judge who learned Java so he could adjudicate the Oracle v Google case with some level of expertise and was impressive with his insight in every aspect of that case I followed. IMO, he embodies the professionalism that we require from the bench. I certainly wouldn't throw out attacks on him based on a mildly snarky comment replying to a pretty silly argument.
Was it the same case where an Oracle lawyer disclosed, supposedly on accident, the figures Google earned? Or the other way around. Sorry, my memory is hazy. But I remember the judge being pretty harsh and snarky towards the lawyer.
Uber's lawyers are being idiots, asking for things that they know they won't get, and he's slapping them down. To claim he's biased and unprofessional you have to show that he wouldn't do the same thing to anybody else acting the same way.
If Uber wants to protect their reputation in the news, they need to win the case.
You seem to think judges have an obligation to deny their humanity. That's not the case, and never has been. Read some opinions (and dissents) from the Supreme Court if you have the time. Sarcasm is an important tool of debate, and no reason to dismiss someone's judgement.
(And to make sure this doesn't involve into the culture war: Justice Scalia was probably the best example of undeniable intelligence unashamedly using humour and sarcasm in his writing)
Please don't post accusations like this, no matter what you're replying to. If you think a comment doesn't belong on HN, you can flag it by visiting its page via the timestamp link and then clicking on the flag link.
I'm really tired of people being snarky for the sake of being snarky. I think it comes across as smarmy, like "hey, look at this joke we are all in on."
There are some people who are snarky in a way that is witty and thought-provoking. Those are the people whose snark I enjoy.
It's kind of like the difference between someone who has a very dry sense of humor, and the person who calls themselves sarcastic, but in reality is just a mean person.
Snark is not a virtue limited to tech journalists. My significant other is a journalist (outside of tech), so we have lots of journalist friends. They are hands down the snarkiest people I know.
Sounds like you just described every HN comment ever: 'Oh, you understand red-black trees and just scanned two Wikipedia articles? Let me hear more about your theories on political economy and your pronouncements on environmental policy regarding the Amazon...'
One person's "superficial understanding of lots of things" is another person's deep understanding of how humans act and how they rationalize their actions, regardless of domain.
