12-01-2002, 08:06 PM
Blue Crack Addict
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Local Time: 07:21 AM
A phony diamond, -> poetic justice, a sad day for us all.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court 'rhyming' judge out of rhythm with peers
By DAN NEPHIN, Associated Press
PITTSBURGH (November 27, 5:30 p.m. AST) - A state Supreme Court justice given to writing opinions in rhyme was criticized by two fellow justices who said his style reflected poorly on the court.
Seven stanzas from Justice J. Michael Eakin, and complaints about them from Chief Justice Stephen A. Zappala and Justice Ralph Cappy, appeared in a decision Wednesday involving a dispute over a prenuptial agreement.
Susan Porreco's lawsuit claims the prenuptial agreement she signed with Louis Porreco should have been voided because he allegedly misrepresented the engagement ring as a diamond.
In his opinion, Eakin wrote rhymes including:
"A groom must expect matrimonial pandemonium
when his spouse finds he's given her a cubic zirconium
instead of a diamond in her engagement band,
the one he said was worth twenty-one grand."
"The filing of an opinion that expresses itself in rhyme reflects poorly on the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania," Zappala wrote. "No matter addressed by this court is frivolous."
Cappy wrote that judges have the right to express themselves, but expressed concern about "the perception that litigants and the public at large might form when an opinion of this Court is reduced to rhyme."
Eakin, through his secretary, said Wednesday that it would be inappropriate to comment on what Zappala and Cappy wrote.
In Wednesday's decision, the Supreme Court overruled a trial court that had agreed with Susan Porreco that the prenuptial agreement was fraudulent. The high court sent the case back to the lower court, saying Susan Porreco could have had the ring appraised before signing the agreement.
Eakin was among the judges dissenting in the 4-2 decision.
Eakin, 54, had become known for writing some opinions in rhyme as a Superior Court judge before he was elected to a 10-year term on the Supreme Court in November 2001.
It is bad enough to be on the losing side of a court decision.
But, to have it handed down in crappy poety sounds unconstitutional to me. i. e. "crule and unusual"