On: Why Clarence Thomas Uses Simple Words in His Opinions

[oftenwrong]

Sometimes legalese is intentionally constructed to create ambiguity and double meanings.

[a3camero → oftenwrong]

It's more about using previously tested blocks of language. Here's a good example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalaya_clause

Or the drafter may not be a very good writer! It's easy to fall back on legalese instead of taking the time to make something concise (see the article/video).

[svdad → a3camero]

> It's more about using previously tested blocks of language. Here's a good example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalaya_clause

Right; there's some cargo culting in legal writing. Until a particular form of words has been tested in court, no-one really knows whether it will stand up.

If there's an untested standard form, most people won't want to experiment with a variation because if their variation happens to be the one that fails, there's a possibility of a negligence suit for not using the standard form.

If there's a tested standard form, even fewer people will want to experiment, for the same reason.

[erichocean → svdad]

...there's some cargo culting in legal writing...

Some? In my experience, it rises to the level of "massive amounts of".