Humor, Part I: Absurdity

Attractive Nuisance believes that one of the federal judiciary's major literary failings is its virtually nonexistent use of humor. She understands that justice is serious business, but fails to see why that noble purpose is inherently incompatible with employing a few instances of humor to enliven a ninety-page decision. She therefore offers the following five-part series intended to instruct and enlighten readers on the successful use of judicial humor, beginning today with a particularly underutilized category: absurdity.

One of A-Nu's favorite absurdist opinions of all time is Republic of Bolivia v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc., 39 F. Supp. 2d 1008 (S.D. Tex. 1999), in which Judge Kent explains why venue in the District of Columbia is more appropriate for a dispute involving the government of Bolivia. The opinion really needs to be read to be truly appreciated (and -- at an admirable three pages -- it aptly illustrates the maxim about brevity being the soul of wit). A few choice morsels, however, ought to whet the reader's appetite. Judge Kent explains: "The Court seriously doubts whether Brazoria County has ever seen a live Bolivian . . . even on the Discovery Channel. Though only here by removal, this humble Court by the sea is certainly flattered by what must be the worldwide renown of rural Texas courts for dispensing justice with unparalleled fairness and alacrity, apparently in common discussion even on the mountain peaks of Bolivia!"

And, inherent value of humor aside, Judge Kent skillfully employs absurdity to make a substantive legal point: no way should Bolivia be litigating in the Southern District of Texas, because -- as his absurdist humor demonstrates -- one has nothing to do with the other.