Opinion ID: 1377460
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Rhetoric of Rudeness

Text: To quote from the majority opinion: The author of this opinion has experienced first-hand that the loss of collegiality can only serve to promote disharmony and impede rational discourse. 208 W.Va. at 599, 542 S.E.2d at 420. Then the majority opinion proceeds to use language conducive to anything but collegial discourse. See, e.g., 208 W.Va. at 587 n. 7, 542 S.E.2d at 408 n. 7, that credits the press with commentary ... [leading to a] state of calumny that has beset this institution [the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals] .... Calumny is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as slander. But it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black for the majority opinion to characterize others ' language as slanderous. For example, the majority opinion describes my dissenting language in this Court's original order by which we agreed to hear the merits of this case as contorted logic, shallow, and jurisprudentially indefensible, 208 W.Va. at 590, 542 S.E.2d at 411. And the majority opinion calls Justice McGraw's attorney insulting and grossly unprofessional, 208 W.Va. at 597, 542 S.E.2d at 418. The majority opinion further describes Justice McGraw as audacious and impugning the character of this Court, 208 W.Va. at 588, 598, 542 S.E.2d at 409, 419. I could go on, but these examples suffice. It was a mistake to include such ephemeral, ill-considered gibes in a formal opinion of this Court. Such an unfortunate choice of words certainly does nothing to encourage collegiality on the Court. (Dissents, being more personal than Court opinions, historically have greater latitude, but even in dissents, harsh, ad hominem, language does not age well.) III.