Defining professionalism is a bit like defining obscenity. It defies all efforts at reduction to a coherent rule, free from subjective perspective. It does however port quite well, empirically, to the relative power of the competing professionals; and little else. Like skunks in a stink strength contest where all impartial judges have long since scattered.

When any group claims to be uniquely competent and ethical it directly implies the perfect corollary that non-group members are non-competent and non-ethical.

It is also similar to claims by any group that politics is governed by anything other than self-interest . . . where only the objectors are self-interested. It condenses down to nothing more than power . . . or subjective perception of one's own relative power in a particular venue.

Humor is less offensive . . . from my perspective. (In the mutual self-interest of all.)

Professionalism is an acquired skill, best learned from example, such as the great lesson in this lawyer's impolite/degrading comment. The seasoned professional when faced with a judge who does not follow what seems a logical conclusion might think this judge is a few chick peas short of a hummus, but would never say that. Professionalism teaches that discretion is the better part of valor. How different things might have been had the lawyer said "I might be a few fries short of a happy meal your honor, but I simply cannot understand how you arrived at your conclusion. The humor works much better when self directed - eh.

Seems more like a compliment than an insult to me.

It seems to me that substanard judges tend to be common in machine jurisdictions like some around here, but confronting an individual face-to-face, politely or not, is likely to lead to retaliation imho,since it is a rare judge who will confess to being a mere puppet in a puppet show.

If professionalism were to become the standard in our culture, blog comments would be very boring.

Years ago, someone recommended I read a book that discussed how "professionalism" in the courts supported the rise of fascism in Nazi Germany, I believe the title was "The Rise and Fall of Nazi Germany" (Not the Third Reich). I haven't gotten around to reading it, but it's still on my list.

We Americans tend to be a pretty naieve lot.

The longer I practice, the more I realize that a substantial percentage of judges are not the sharpest knives in the drawer. In the "old days" trial lawyers would "retire" to the bench after decades of practice. Now we have judges who have little experience and are, in the main, political appointments. As for the subject thin skinned judge, p**s on her.