Most of the time court orders or appellate decisions are, to be charitable, pretty bland. But occasionally judges use strong language. Where is the right line? Surely there are instances when strong language is called for and just as surely judges can overdo it. The American Bar Association Journal reports, “The District of Columbia’s Office of the Attorney General is taking issue with a federal judge’s scathing opinion finding that city attorneys violated a discovery order.  In a motion , District of Columbia Attorney General Irvin Nathan , accused U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth of using “vituperative rhetoric” in his opinion, according to The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times. The motion (PDF) asks Judge Lamberth to reconsider his opinion or, in the alternative, to stay sanctions pending appellate review.  Lamberth’s opinion had said the district conducted unauthorized discovery in response to a suit claiming a right to post political signs on lamp posts. In the Oct. 4 opinion (PDF), Lamberth wrote: “The central issue is whether defendant was authorized to propound any discovery at all. The answer is clear: No. Given the history of this litigation, the District’s position and arguments are as untenable as they are ridiculous. Defendant asks this court to enter an Orwellian world where all arguments are devoid of context, and all court orders magically mean whatever the District wishes them to mean. The court rejects this invitation.”