The “cringey footnotes” are inserted in the most conspicuous parts of the opinion (i.e., page 1 and the conclusion). So they are probably directed at laypeople – a way of saying, look, my hands are tied; please avoid spamming my chambers with hate mail, nasty phone calls or worse (see e.g., Kavanaugh incident).Anonymous User wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 10:27 pmFed Soc writing style is cringeAnonymous User wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 9:10 pmEvery opinion Pittman writes in a major case includes cringey footnotes quoting obscure long-dead Virginia jurists about how the result doesn't reflect his politics. I don't know where he finds them. He's a good technical writer but his style is immature and try-hard.
I agree, the 18th-century quotes are a little "try-hard" and reek of in-group signaling. But judicial authors probably view these sorts of disclaimers as necessary given the amount of public attention receive nowadays.
A suggestion is to keep the disclaimer ("I'm not saying loan forgiveness is good or bad") but remove the Founding Era quotations. You don't need a citation for as basic a maxim as "the Court’s job is merely to interpret the law."
