canada canadian flag.gifWe’ve been on a bit of a Canada kick here at ATL. What can we say, those Canadians are teh funny.
Check out this story (robe swish: Paul Horwitz of PrawfsBlawg):

Some [Canadian] Supreme Court judges seek relief from work stress in the comfort of their families. Others love nothing more than to curl up with a good book. And could it be, for at least one of them, a nude romp on the high seas was just the ticket?

The anonymous judge’s alleged unconventional vacation choice — a nude cruise — came to light in a San Francisco Chronicle travel article in the spring. It quoted a co-owner of the Bare Necessities cruise line, Nancy Tiemann, as saying that its clientele include: “actors, bus drivers, Fortune 500 CEOs, soccer moms, doctors, teachers, priests and at least one Canadian Supreme Court justice.” * * * * *

The story came to the attention of Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, who swiftly launched an investigation into which, if any, of her eight colleagues was the alleged unrobed sailor.

Can Canadian judges, like our federal judges, be impeached for violating the norms of “good behavior”? Because we agree with Ann Althouse: “[A] naked cruise? It’s just so perfectly awful.”
Alas, the Chief Justice’s investigation ended inconclusively:

Speaking to an audience at the University of Toronto law school last week, [Justice Marshall] Rothstein read a tongue-in-cheek memo which Chief Justice McLachlin circulated to her Supreme Court colleagues on May 12.

Entitled “Re. Nude Cruising,” the memo said: “I made inquiries into the identity of the judge, but was rebuffed [by the article writer] on a claim of journalistic privilege. . . . All this is to say, that our secret is safe.”

Judge Rothstein assured his audience that, having been appointed only in March, he cannot be considered a serious suspect in the nude-cruise inquiry.

If the justice who likes to vacation in the buff is ever discovered, we can’t really blame him or her for wanting to go au naturel. Here’s what Canadian justices look like in their ceremonial robes (also via PrawfsBlawg):
canadian supreme court canada supreme court merry christmas.jpg
In case you’re wondering, the robes are “of bright scarlet, trimmed with Canadian white mink.”
Your Honors: Eager to supplement your judicial incomes? The West Edmonton Mall is still interviewing Santa Claus candidates. And the Salvation Army is looking for sidewalk fundraisers right now. Christmas is less than two months away!
Underneath Their Robes? The Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada [PrawfsBlawg]
Which Supreme Court Justice went on a nude cruise? [Althouse]
Did Supreme Court judge throw away briefs? [Toronto Globe and Mail]
Finally, the Naked Truth Aboot Nude Cruises [San Francisco Chronicle via How Appealing]
Aboot the Court [Supreme Court of Canada]
Earlier: Law and Order: Fashion Victims Unit
Prior ATL coverage of Canada (scroll down)


comments sponsored by

6 comments (hidden for your protection) Show all comments

6 thoughts on “Fashion Victims Unit: The Canadian Supreme Court

  1. Anonymous says:

    It seems appropriate that an ad featuring the loathesome Jack and Suzy Welch would be featured prominently on this site…

  2. Anonymous says:

    If you find this site “loathesome” (sic), then why are you here?
    Each time you post a comment, that’s another pageview for ATL. Each time someone reads your stupid comment, that’s another pageview too.
    Good work, moron.

  3. Anonymous says:

    7:30 — you are obviously not a lawyer or perhaps even sentient. The Welches are loathesome (Br. spelling) – not necessarily ATL — although it comes perilously close on occasion.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Anglophile dude (6:53 PM):
    1. No, “loathesome” is NOT the British spelling. Here is what you get from the Oxford English Dictionary when you enter the non-word “loathesome” (sic). Read it and weep.
    2. Don’t you have anything better to do with your time than (a) player-hate one of the most successful CEOs in the history of American business, and (b) read a website that you think “comes perilously close” to being “loathesome” (sic)?

  5. Anonymous says:

    6:53 PM: The 7:30 PM commenter is far more sentient than you are.
    Both of his/her points are well-taken. You’re wrong on the spelling, and it is moronic to contribute to the traffic of a website you dislike.

  6. [...] atop their robes. The accessory is still au courant in several former English colonies, like Canada and Zimbabwe, as [...]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>