« Should Justice Alito Have Attended the SOTU? | Main | Religion and "anti-sorting principles" »
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Robes
Is it really necessary for the Supreme Court Justices who attend the State of the Union to wear their robes? Is there a good reason for it? I'm not sure there is a good reason for the robe at all, ever. Does anyone think that it makes sense for judges to have uniforms? And even if you do, does it make sense to wear them when attending the State of the Union? Enlighten me.
I suspect this query won't be as popular or as interesting as the originalism debate we had here this weekend (which got a volume of comments usually reserved only for conversations about appointments, the bar exam, and whether wearing jeans is appropiate in the classroom). But let me take this opportunity to thank our readers for an extremely thoughtful conversation this past weekend; this is some of the best that Prawfsblawg has to offer its authors and its readers.
Posted by Ethan Leib on February 1, 2006 at 11:53 AM in Current Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6a7953ef00d83425030653ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Robes:
» Should Have Alito Taken A Seato At SOTU? from Law Blog
PrawfsBlog has some provocative posts on the Supreme Courts attendance at last nights State of the Union address. First, it questions whether Justice Alito should have gone to the SOTU at all. On the one hand, writes Southwestern law sch... [Read More]
Tracked on Feb 1, 2006 5:06:36 PM
Comments
No, I don't think they should ever wear robes. I don't see the point. Why can't they just dress like everyone else? At least they don't wear the silly wigs like the judges do in England.
Posted by: Terry Mitchell | Feb 1, 2006 12:07:23 PM
The power of visual symbols should not be underestimated. The robe is just such a symbol, representing both neutrality (the black) and a special relationship with other people in the judge's court (which is really the only time, other than I suppose at the SOTU, that the robes are worn). That special relationship is one of both power and impartiality.
There's nothing silly at all about acknowledging that these kinds of visual symbols do mean a lot. A different question is whether we like what the symbols represent. Is that really the question you are asking?
Posted by: md | Feb 1, 2006 12:29:43 PM
The function of any uniform is to erase (or minimize) individual identity in favor of group conformity. When judges wear robes, the symbolic message is that they act as a single Court, not a collection of idiosyncratic people whose personal identities might determine the outcome of a case. Not very realistic, perhaps, but still a laudable value, in my view. Actually, it's amazing to me how difficult it can be actually to distinguish the features of one judge from the next when they are all in costume.
Posted by: Justin | Feb 1, 2006 12:53:11 PM
FWIW, I understand that the Hon. Jack Weinstein (EDNY) doesn't wear a robe.
Posted by: alkali | Feb 1, 2006 12:57:31 PM
Of course there is powerful symbolism in wearing a robe, including commanding authority and, perhaps, Justin's points on conformity and erasing individual identity.
But, the reason the judges wore those robes to the SOFU address is simply that, in the U.S., politics is theater. Certainly, Rehnquist realized this when he had his robe emblazoned with 4 gold stripes on each sleeve, inspired by a Gilbert & Sullivan opera. (And don't try to argue that law isn't politics isn't theater).
Posted by: M | Feb 1, 2006 1:56:15 PM
I think the practice is strange, if unobjectionable. Normally, judges wear robes only when they're performing their core institutional function: sitting behind a bench presiding over a courtroom, whether oral argument or trial court proceeding. Whatever the justices are doing at the SOTU, it's not adjudication, or anything like it.
I suppose the best reading of the practice is an expression that the justices are there as justices, rather than as political partisans or merely as interested citizens. That's not a bad line to draw, particularly if it reminds the viewers and other audience members that the justices aren't (or aren't supposed to be) like everyone else attending, but that they're actually supposed to be neutral arbiters of the law (though non-attendance might send that message even more strongly).
Posted by: Dave | Feb 1, 2006 4:14:21 PM
As others have said, I think it's appropriate (if they are to attend at all) to wear robes, because they are as the institution of the Supreme Court, not as the individual; it's the same reason, I suppose, why the military officers there are in fulil dress uniform: because they are representing the institution, not themselves.
Posted by: Simon | Feb 1, 2006 4:21:18 PM
A commencement speaker I heard (whose identity escapes me) mentioned that the robe is a symbol of honor reserved for the most exalted professions in western societies: clergy, judiciary, academia. This also speaks to why our undergraduate professors sport robes for graduation.
Posted by: Cassidy | Feb 8, 2006 7:36:19 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
