You cannot select more than 25 topics Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.
This repo is archived. You can view files and clone it, but cannot push or open issues/pull-requests.

24 lines
1.6 KiB

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters!

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters that may be confused with others in your current locale. If your use case is intentional and legitimate, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to highlight these characters.

#lang pollen
(define-meta title "court opinions")
hanging-topic[(topic-from-metas metas)]{More diverse than you might think}
(define (madlib word)
`(span ((class "madlib")) ,word))
A common counterargument I hear from attorneys resistant to better typography is called What Judges Want. In Mad Libs format, it goes like this: Sure Matthew, thats a fine idea, but __madlib{noun} __ is what judges want, because all judges are __madlib{adjective phrase}__.
What goes in the blanks?
14-point type ... old and wear glasses.
Times New Roman ... reading on paper.
Boring typography ... only interested in substance.
Or anything, really. Because What Judges Want is based on the same faulty reasoning as all broad-brushstroke arguments. Whether youve met ten judges or a thousand, its apparent that theyre as different from each other as attorneys are. Why try to generalize?
I dont. Rather than debate What Judges Want, I encourage these attorneys to rely on evidence. Court rules are one example.
Court opinions are another. If it were true that judges are only interested in substance a favored contention then wed expect judges to put zero effort into the presentation of their own work. But thats not the case. Sure, plenty of judges issue documents that look awful. Just as plenty of attorneys do. But many others appreciate that typography makes a difference.
This next example is not fictional. It shows recent improvements made by the Utah Supreme Court to the typography of its opinions.