1. How do you feel about a judge using this kind of language in his rulings?
I think it's great, with a couple of caveats (heh), plus the fact that all I'm going on is the article and not an in-depth study of his rulings: a.) that his name puns not actually mock anyone, and b.) that little-known words do not obfuscate, confuse, or misdirect interpretation. I was relieved to read where the U.S. Attorney said, "...Selya never obscures the main point of his opinions and tends to put unfamiliar words in introductory sections. "He always articulates a rule of law or procedure in words everyone can understand,".
2. Did you get any kind of uncomfortable feeling when you read the earlier NYTimes article in regard to the later article?
Nary a bit. All that came across was that the writer didn't like what the judge was doing, and found someone to support his position; plus, I don't feel the need to particularly respect the opinions of anyone who could come up with and publish, "He would forge at his judicial smithy a gleaming alloy of wit and erudition...".
