IS IT TRUE JUNE 1, 2015

1. The only people this rule will penalize are poor people. Poor people and working people wear t shirts and jeans. rich people and desk jockeys wear suits an ties. While I agree pajamas and shorts are not appropriate the rules I saw went too far. This is class snobbery at its worst.

   • What else would you expect from D’Amour?

   • “The only people this rule will penalize are poor people. ”

     Let me fix that for you…

     “The only people this rule will penalize are trashy people…”

     See what I did there? Based on my reading of the proposed rule, a person who shows up in (clean) jeans and a non-logo shirt and is wearing closed toe shoes is good to go.

     Does anybody here seriously believe ‘poor’ people universally think that showing up to a formal public function clad in filthy pajama pants, flip flops, a belly shirt that says ‘HOTTIE’ and 8 inches of ass-crack hanging out is acceptable? ‘Poor’ does not = ‘without class’, and ‘clean and appropriate clothing’ does not = ‘expensive’.

     I’m actually a bit surprised that those who claim to advocate for the poor/working class think the folks they advocate for are too senseless or trashy to know how a person should dress in public.

2. Judges have way too much power in the court room if this goes though. Making someone wear a dress shirt in court is excessive. Not everyone has to wear dress shirts at work or a coat and tie. It might be good to make the Lawyers wear a suit and tie as that should be their normal dress. But to make their clients dress up in “MONKEY SUITS” it ridiculous and smells of snobbery to the max. I’m retired and dress casual all the time. I don’t plan on having to go to court anytime soon and I hope that if I’m someday for some reason forced to attend the court I am not forced to wear a shirt and tie just to satisfy some Judge’s wish for a certain formal attire to be forced on his court attendants. These Judges are elected. They should all be thrown out at the ballot box if this becomes the rule. I do agree that anyone wearing PJ’s in court should at least get dressed and wear some sort of pants. And take your hat off when you go inside the court room. But a clean “T” shirt should be acceptable attire IMHO. I don’t wear long sleeve dress shirts in the summer time nor in the winter anymore. Now if the court is willing to buy clothing for all those that have to attend their court then that would be OK. But to force poor people to go out and buy VERY EXPENSIVE Shirts, ties and Dress coats is going overboard. This is more an economic issue to me than a social one. Most people don’t wear a suit to work. And not everyone goes to a church that requires people to dress up. Many Churches these days allow you to wear what you want in church.

   • Moveon, thanks for the laughs. Next thing you’ll be whining that voter ID suppresses minority voters, vaccines make people sick and global warming is real. Keep up the comedy.

     • If one could at least afford a 1 bedroom apt on min wage, I’d listen to proposals requiring them to buy nicer clothes. Get back with me when that happens.

       • Ghost, Section 8 basically gives housing away for free, or scaled to income. A person working minimum wage can easily afford your price-controlled apartment. At 1505 N. 3rd you don’t even need a job – – I know folks whose monthly rent for these (once) very nice apartments is exactly $0.

         And this has nothing to do with ‘nice’ clothes. It has do with ‘not filthy’ and ‘appropriate’ clothes.

         But I suspect you already know both of the above.

         • Section 8 takes years to get on.

     • Debating conservatives is like playing chess against a pigeon. They crap all over the board, knock over the pieces, and then strut around declaring themselves the winner.

       • Oh come on now! Everyone knows that’s true about the left-wingers. They’re the ones with loose bowels and no anal splincter.

         • There are LOTS of spurious BS claims made here by conners whose only support is by “Because I say so” eg global warming isn’t real. They offer ZERO proof or logic or research study etc. Then they prance around like they just cured cancer.

           EFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF THEM

       • Liberalism is an actual mental disorder. I’ve told you before, you suffer greatly and you need serious therapy.

         • Another stupid wild unsubstantiated claim without one iota of evidence to support it.

   • http://www.nmd.uscourts.gov/sites/nmd/files/Judge%20Kelly%20Dress%20Code.pdf

     I do not see anything unreasonable here. If it is good enough for the Feds, it ought to be good enough locally.

   • Have you ever heard of Goodwill or Salvation Army or the Saint Vincent De Paul store? They all have nice clothes at very reasonable prices..

   • Go back and read DeltaBravo’s post. Learn.

3. I hate feeling someone’s raff, especially when I’m reading the classic novel “The Grapes of Raff.”

   • Hell hath no fury like the raff of a woman scorned . . . .

   • Ah, the indignity of the wrath (raff?) that one must suffer in this community….

4. Restaurants that require jackets often have a selection of jackets for people to borrow while they eat. If a court, which is owned by the people wishes to mandate a dress code, let them supply acceptable sport coats that have been endorsed by the presiding judge. You can’t legislate morality, common sense, or elegance. This judge is on an ego trip to attempt to do so.

   • I agree. It sounds like the dress code to golf at the country club- collared shirts and slacks. D’Amour wouldn’t know anything about poor people. He pays someone to come to house and wash his stable of cars.

     Every single word processing program has spell check and grammar check. The grammar check is a different color than misspelled words and not always reliable, but it seems to me that the editor could at least attempt to correct the words underlined in red. Or do what the rest of us do. If we can figure out how to spell or use a particular word, we use a different one- probably the origin of the thesaurus.

     • Surprised the wrath of the editorial staff let that comment gain flight.

     • Unfortunately SpellCheck doesn’t differentiate between to, too, and two (see today’s editor’s article), or they’re, there, and their, or ensure and insure, or your and you’re, or its and it’s, and several other commonly misused words. Many of today’s recent high school (and even college) graduates seem to be of the opinion that if the auto correct spelling and grammar applications on their smartphone or computer don’t flag the words they type it must be okay. You still need an 8th grade education and common sense to communicate properly.

   • “This judge is on an ego trip to attempt to do so.”

     I disagree. It is entirely appropriate to attempt to bring a modicum of dignity and gravitas to formal court proceedings. We have a long history of behavioral and procedural rules in the U.S. court system. When in court, you can’t wander around screaming obscenities. You can’t take a crap in the corner during opening statements. You can’t light up a smoke, spit on the floor, flip off the judge. etc. I’m not sure why we, as a society, seem so hell-bent on seeing just how low we can set the bar for the behavior of our citizens in public.

     Of interest perhaps, a quote from Heinlein:

     “Sick cultures show a complex of symptoms such as you have named. . . but a dying culture invariably exhibits personal rudeness. Bad manners. Lack of consideration for others in minor matters. A loss of politeness, of gentle manners, is more significant than is a riot…” FRIDAY

   • Might ask those “famous bankers” HCW pointed to at those multiple sand flipping events where they got the tan blazers for the event. Most likely a good supply for those who might have an need one to appear in the Judges courtroom.

   • “You can’t legislate morality, common sense, or elegance. This judge is on an ego trip to attempt to do so.”

     Attempting to bring a modicum of dignity and gravitas to a court proceeding is not an ‘ego trip’.

     We have a long history of dictating acceptable appearance and behavior in the U.S. court system. While in a judicial proceeding you can’t scream obscenities at a judge, flip off the jury, take a crap in the corner, race naked around the courtoom, hack a wad of dip spit onto the floor, etc. Heaven forbid we expect people to also dress in modest, clean clothes which the general public would typically recognize as ‘appropriate’?

     Of interest, a favorite quote from Heinlein:

     “Sick cultures show a complex of symptoms such as you have named. . . but a dying culture invariably exhibits personal rudeness. Bad manners. Lack of consideration for others in minor matters. A loss of politeness, of gentle manners, is more significant than is a riot.. This symptom is especially serious in that an individual displaying it never thinks of it as a sign of ill health but as proof of his/her strength.” FRIDAY

5. Slow responses, unimportant IiT’s subjects……. reeks of the machined offerings.

6. I would never go to court dressed like I didn’t respect the justice system. I also realize that the justice system is owned by the taxpayers and think that if one wants to show up in something a judge may not approve of they should be free to do so. What will this judge do about trials that involve someone in shackles and an orange jumpsuit as a witness or as a defendant?

   • Shock belt under street clothes to keep from prejudicing the jury. Deputy with button finger tic to assure the right answers.

Comments are closed.