Chief Justice Cites Bob Dylan, But Corrects the Grammar

Supreme Court

Chief Justice Cites Bob Dylan, But Corrects the Grammar

Posted Jun 30, 2008, 06:55 am CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss

The times they are a changin’.

The former chief justice, William H. Rehnquist, cited Gilbert & Sullivan in a 1980 case. His replacement, John G. Roberts Jr., cited Bob Dylan in a Monday dissent to a case involving a suit filed against AT&T, the New York Times reports. Roberts had argued a collection company had no standing to sue on behalf of several pay phone providers because it had nothing to gain by the lawsuit.

Here was the quote, as it appeared in Roberts’ opinion: “When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose.” But the Times says Roberts corrected the grammar, “proving that he is neither an originalist nor a strict constructionist.” Dylan actually sings: “When you ain’t got nothing, you got nothing to lose.”

The story suggests the change may be because of Internet-posted lyrics that use the grammatically correct version.

Law professor Alex Long of the University of Tennessee, who has studied citation to rock music in judicial opinions, says the opinion is the first issued by the Supreme Court to cite rock music in support of a legal proposition. Lower court judges have already broken that ground, though.

Dylan is more often cited than any other rocker, with 26 citations in judicial opinions. Paul Simon is next, with 12 citations if you include references to Simon & Garfunkel. Long's rock review was published (PDF) in the Washington & Lee Law Review last year.

Updated at 5:08 p.m. July 2 to indicate that "ain't" is audible but doesn't appear in transcribed lyrics.

Comments

Report Abuse

Posted by gary newport - 1 month, 4 weeks, 1 day, 17 hours, 47 minutes ago

The New York Times legal reporter is apparently not an attorney or he would know that the theory of strict constructionism relates to the interpretation of the U.S Constitution and not the lyrics of songs, the latter of which is known as license.
Posted by David Giacalone - 1 month, 4 weeks, 1 day, 16 hours, 57 minutes ago

I ain’t a grammar expert, but “you got nothing” don’t sound like correct grammar to I.

It is, at best, “more grammatically correct.”
Posted by 7b - 1 month, 4 weeks, 14 hours, 14 minutes ago

Mr. Newport does not, apparently, have any sense of sarcasm or humor, or he would realize that the New York Times legal reporter was quite obviously making a joke and was not intending his words to be taken literally, the latter of which is known as Mr. Newport being a schmuck.
Posted by NJ attorney - 1 month, 3 weeks, 6 days, 19 hours, 32 minutes ago

He could have corrected it further: “When you have nothing, you have nothing to lose.”
Posted by Steve Wood - 1 month, 3 weeks, 6 days, 19 hours, 4 minutes ago

Or, most properly, “When one has nothing, one has nothing to lose.”
Posted by Ray-boy - 1 month, 3 weeks, 6 days, 18 hours, 49 minutes ago

You’re invisible now, you’ve got no secrets to conceal.

How does it feel?
Posted by NCLawyer - 1 month, 3 weeks, 6 days, 17 hours, 45 minutes ago

Hey #1 ...
I see a lot of crap reporting on legal issues, both here and elsewhere, I think the reporter here was joking on the strict constructionist/originalist thing.
Posted by Erica Doctor - 1 month, 3 weeks, 6 days, 16 hours, 3 minutes ago

Of course, the converse of this would be, “When you got just about everything, your punitive damages are set at $500 million.”
Posted by R - 1 month, 3 weeks, 6 days, 11 hours, 41 minutes ago

Dylan, Schmylan. I’m looking forward to the first published court opinion to cite KISS.
Posted by JC - 1 month, 3 weeks, 6 days, 10 hours, 56 minutes ago

"Law professor Alex Long of the University of Tennessee, who has studied citation to rock music in judicial opinions.” They pay people for this? How much is tuition at Tennessee? Seriously, has anyone quoted the Grateful Dead? Is there someone who is studying rap lyrics in judicial opinions?
Posted by btw - 1 month, 3 weeks, 6 days, 5 hours, 32 minutes ago

to the writer and editor: i appreciate your update to the story for the sake of accuracy, but it is better policy to leave the original story intact and either republish an updated version (which doesn’t make sense for internet posts unless you keep active multiple copies like bloomberg) or include the update in separate text at the end or beginning of the story (which does). in addition, the update makes the title misleading, which you should change. it isn’t clear that Roberts “corrected” the grammar rather than relied on the printed lyrics or perhaps on some other live performance or recording. have you verified, for example, that dylan never sang the song with the lyrics available in print?
Posted by Hylas Hoipoloi - 1 month, 3 weeks, 5 days, 16 hours, 27 minutes ago

That’s right, the grammar wasn’t corrected, because “when you got nothing” is not grammatical [unless he’s using “got” as the past tense of “get” in the sense of “obtain”, i.e. “when you obtained nothing, you obtained nothing that you could lose"]. So it should be “when you have got nothing, you have got nothing to lose”. Or should it be “gotten”? I don’t think so, that too is a different meaning.
Posted by Patrick Granvold - 1 month, 3 weeks, 5 days, 6 hours ago

Re: #10—I sincerely hope that Professor Long HAS studied the influence of popular music in judicial opinions, not made a career of it. One can only assume that he published a monograph on the subject, as a casual endeavor. At least, I really, really hope so.

Commenting has expired on this post.

ABA Journal - Law News Now

Supreme Court