Somewhere, Sator is crying

[Vintage Gent]

Dahlia Lithwick advocates for the demise of the morning coat for the Solicitor General's office:

http://www.slate.com/id/2208114/

 

[james_timothy]

Yes, but more importantly, which is it, black vest or gray vest?

 

[Manton]

Gray.

 

[Sanguis Mortuum]

Next she'll have judges turning up in jeans...

Has anyone got any pictures of women in tails though? I can imagine it looking a bit strange. Maybe a sensible female alternative would be reasonable rather than abolishing it completely?

 

[Mark from Plano]

I would think that the thing that would make Sator cry is the fact that some idiot dressed, or ever considered dressing up a woman in men's formal daywear in the first place. Cross dressing should never have been part of court protocol and shouldn't be today. That said it would be a sad thing indeed if it were eliminated for formal presentations before the court by men.

What needs to happen is an evolution in women's professional dress that includes all levels of professional formality. What is more likely to be done is to simply do away with the morning coat as the author suggests.

 

[JLibourel]

Do they in fact wear morning coats or frock coats? I believe the author of the article seems not to realize that they are quite distinct and different garments.

Agree that it seems quite ridiculous to have women dressing in men's formal daywear.

 

[Manton]

Originally Posted by JLibourel

Do they in fact wear morning coats or frock coats? I believe the author of the article seems not to realize that they are quite distinct and different garments.

Agree that it seems quite ridiculous to have women dressing in men's formal daywear.

It's a morning coat.

 

[Morgan]

I think that point is not so much that the clothing is archaic as that it's hopelessly gendered. You can't suggest a sensible female alternative because there is none, unless it's an off-the-shoulder gown. Morning dress is still okay for non-professional purposes like weddings and, uh ... weddings. But in the 21st century morning dress is a costume, and it's so distinctively masculine as to make it clear that the solicitor general is a man's job. A sensible female alternative would be a very conservative modern pantsuit or skirt suit, neither of which existed when morning dress was standard court attire outside the Supreme Court. If you allow that, then what's to keep the next male solicitor general from wearing a modern conservative business suit? Tradition no longer exerts its restraint once you've allowed women to go modern. But you can't keep women in archaic men's clothing either, because it's ridiculous on its face.

 

[Infrasonic]

I could be wrong but I believe male/female barristers in England wear the same outfits to court...

 

[literasyme]

Underneath their gowns? Really?

 

[james_timothy]

Originally Posted by Morgan

Tradition no longer exerts its restraint once you've allowed women to go modern.
Yes it does, just not as a strict rule. 30 years is too short for a decent new form to be derived from the old traditions and accepted. Women's wear steals liberally from distinctly masculine wear. Give it time- another 20 years or so.

 

[Bhowie]

Originally Posted by Mark from Plano

I would think that the thing that would make Sator cry is the fact that some idiot dressed, or ever considered dressing up a woman in men's formal daywear in the first place. Cross dressing should never have been part of court protocol and shouldn't be today. That said it would be a sad thing indeed if it were eliminated for formal presentations before the court by men.

What needs to happen is an evolution in women's professional dress that includes all levels of professional formality. What is more likely to be done is to simply do away with the morning coat as the author suggests.

+1

 

[Infrasonic]

Originally Posted by literasyme

Underneath their gowns? Really?

Never heard of Knight of the garter..?

 

[greekonomist]

OK, anybody know what Scalia's avatar is on SF? Manton?