Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Why do some names have initials?

2 views
Skip to first unread message

mm

unread,
Dec 21, 2009, 11:07:59 PM12/21/09
to
Why do some names have initials?

On page 3 of 22, maybe 5 screens down into this opinion,
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-678.pdf ,
it is "signed":

"541 F. 3d 1048, affirmed.
SOTOMAYOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,C.
J., and STEVENS, SCALIA, KENNEDY, GINSBURG, BREYER, and ALITO, JJ.,
joined, and in which THOMAS, J., joined, as to Part II�C. THOMAS,J.,
filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment"

How come Sotomayor, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas have their initial
listed and the others don't?

Is it that the initials they list don't match the names they are known
by? That still seems like a strange reason.

In addition -- this was true yesterday. They've fixed it today, I
guess --, while the text of the rest looks normal, the text of the
"signature" is broken up in many pieces, with line breaks even in th
emiddle of names

Cy Pres

unread,
Dec 22, 2009, 8:29:05 AM12/22/09
to
On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 23:07:59 -0500, mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:

>Why do some names have initials?
>
>On page 3 of 22, maybe 5 screens down into this opinion,
>http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-678.pdf ,
>it is "signed":

>"541 F. 3d 1048, affirmed.
>SOTOMAYOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,C.
>J., and STEVENS, SCALIA, KENNEDY, GINSBURG, BREYER, and ALITO, JJ.,
>joined, and in which THOMAS, J., joined, as to Part II�C. THOMAS,J.,
>filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment"
>
>How come Sotomayor, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas have their initial
>listed and the others don't?

That isn't their initial. The "C.J." stands for "Chief Justice, "JJ."
stands for "Justices" (plural) and refers to all the names before it,
and "J." stands for "Justice."

Bob

unread,
Dec 22, 2009, 9:35:24 AM12/22/09
to
On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 23:07:59 -0500, mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:

>Why do some names have initials?
>

>"541 F. 3d 1048, affirmed.
>SOTOMAYOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,C.
>J., and STEVENS, SCALIA, KENNEDY, GINSBURG, BREYER, and ALITO, JJ.,
>joined, and in which THOMAS, J., joined, as to Part II�C. THOMAS,J.,
>filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment"
>
>How come Sotomayor, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas have their initial
>listed and the others don't?

J stands for justice. JJ stands for justices. CJ stands for chief
justice.

Message has been deleted

Stuart A. Bronstein

unread,
Dec 22, 2009, 11:11:28 AM12/22/09
to
mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:

> Why do some names have initials?
>
> On page 3 of 22, maybe 5 screens down into this opinion,
> http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-678.pdf ,
> it is "signed":
>
> "541 F. 3d 1048, affirmed.
> SOTOMAYOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which
> ROBERTS,C. J., and STEVENS, SCALIA, KENNEDY, GINSBURG, BREYER,
> and ALITO, JJ., joined, and in which THOMAS, J., joined, as to
> Part II�C. THOMAS,J., filed an opinion concurring in part and
> concurring in the judgment"
>
> How come Sotomayor, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas have their
> initial listed and the others don't?

They don't have their initials listed. "J" stands for "Justice" and
CJ stands for Chief Justice. Oh, and JJ stands for "justices"
plural. So unless you can only get on the Supreme Court if you
change your first name to Justice, those are not their initials.

--
Stu
http://downtoearthlawyer.com

Steve Bartman

unread,
Dec 22, 2009, 11:12:17 AM12/22/09
to
On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 23:07:59 -0500, mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:

>Why do some names have initials?

C.J.= Chief Justice
J.= Justice
J.J.= Justices

Steve

Mike Jacobs

unread,
Dec 22, 2009, 11:14:55 AM12/22/09
to
On Dec 21, 11:07 pm, mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> Why do some names have initials?

Um, in the example you gave from the header of a SCOTUS opinion, the
"J" and "CJ" after their names are not initials, it's an abbreviation
for their titles:

CJ = Chief Justice
J = Justice
JJ = Justices (plural)

When a list of several "Justices" is given, the abbreviation "JJ"
appears only at the _end_ of the list, not after each name. Say it
out loud in English, and it will make sense.

Didn't you notice that Justice Sotomayor's first name doesn't start
with "J" - it's "Sonia"?

And Chief Justice Roberts' first name and middle initial are "John G."
so if it was his initials it would be "JG"?

And wasn't it just a bit strange that _everybody's_ initial was "J"?

I'm just razzing you, Mike. Good question, simple but non-obvious
answer.

--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300

mm

unread,
Dec 23, 2009, 2:10:06 PM12/23/09
to
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 08:14:55 -0800 (PST), Mike Jacobs
<mjaco...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Dec 21, 11:07 pm, mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> Why do some names have initials?

>Didn't you notice that Justice Sotomayor's first name doesn't start


>with "J" - it's "Sonia"?

Sure. I commented on that. "Is it that the initials they list don't
match the names they are known by? " I figured maybe her full name
was Julia Sonia Sotomayor.

>
>And Chief Justice Roberts' first name and middle initial are "John G."
>so if it was his initials it would be "JG"?
>
>And wasn't it just a bit strange that _everybody's_ initial was "J"?

Didn't notice that. And J is a very common initial. All the Hebrew
names that start with yud start with J in English, Joshua, Jacob,
Jack, Jeremy, Jeremiah, Jonathan, Joseph, John, etc. plus other names
like Julia, Julius, June, Jeffrey, etc.

>I'm just razzing you, Mike. Good question, simple but non-obvious
>answer.

It seems you are all agreed on the answer. I humbly accept it.

Believe it or not, I had at least 26 hours, maybe 48 to think about
this before I posted, and still I didn't get it. I'd like to think I
was once quicker than I am now, but maybe not.

hr(bob) hofmann@att.net

unread,
Dec 26, 2009, 3:25:09 PM12/26/09
to

As long as you are humble, others don't razz you too much.

0 new messages