1. How do you feel about a judge using this kind of language in his rulings?
When it comes to the more obscure words, I agree with judge Selya, "There are worse things than forcing people to go occasionally to the dictionary, which is one of the most under-used books in the library," especially if the words do come naturally to him. His rulings are read by educated people, why would they complain about a little more knowledge. If they often read perficient (instead of efficient) then they too might help invigorate this seldom-used word.
It is also important to know that he keeps his more obscure words to his written rulings. This means that when he speaks to litigants he makes sure that he speaks in a way that they will understand him.
In regards to the puns, I think it is unprofessional, and disrespectful, because it pokes fun at the litigants. Not everybody has the same sense of humour. When you have not been the brunt of a joke for all of your life, you cannot know how horrible it can make you feel.
Constantly harping on one “punny” theme also denigrates one of the litigants in respect to the other. Both litigants are owed respect.
If he made puns that did not have to do with either litigant, then I wouldn't have a problem with it.
2. Did you get any kind of uncomfortable feeling when you read the earlier NYTimes article in regard to the later article?
Do you mean that the second article seems to use the previous article and elaborate on it? Like using the Foote examples?
