Thomas Goldstein (2007) Photo by Diego M. Radzinschi/ NLJ.

At the November oral argument in a securities case, Justice Anthony Kennedy asked Thomas Goldstein of Goldstein & Russell whether the U.S. Supreme Court could write a “clear” opinion in a certain way. Goldstein answered: “Well, Justice Kennedy, I have learned that the answer to the question: Can the Supreme Court do X, is always, yes.”

Goldstein's quip triggered laughter throughout the courtroom and smiles across the bench. It was a reminder that despite the loss of Justice Antonin Scalia's wicked wit, humor still could be found in even the driest of cases.

Justice Neil Gorsuch picked up a few laughs earlier this year when he brought up his steak rub: “I like some turmeric. I like a few other ingredients, but I'm not going to tell you how much of each.” Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. drew laughter when he described the political science of partisan gerrymandering as “sociological gobbledygook.”

Laugh lines this year, like others, were delivered by the justices themselves and by the lawyers who were arguing in court. What follows are snippets of dialogue that brought some laughter—and perhaps an accompanying grimace.

Are you talking to me? (Patchak v. Zinke)

Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. to Scott Gant of Boies Schiller Flexner: “Can the federal government be sued in state court?”

Justice Stephen Breyer: “You can. Yeah.”

Roberts to Gant: “I'm asking you.”

Gant: “I don't want to get in the way of a good discussion.”

Noel Francisco's wedding cake. (Masterpiece v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission)

Justice Neil Gorsuch: “In fact, I have yet to have a wedding cake that I would say tastes great.”

Solicitor General Noel Francisco: And, Your Honor, my wedding cake, the top of it is still sitting in our freezer, and I'm sure it no longer tastes great.”

These are words no advocate ever wants to hear. (Carpenter v. United States)

Justice Sonia Sotomayor to Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben: “How would, how would you like to lose?”

More words an advocate never wants to hear. (Ayestas v. Davis)

Breyer: Is there anything else you have going for you at the moment?

Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller: “Well, this, this …”

Breyer: “Obviously, I'm skeptical of your argument, but go ahead.”

Roberts doesn't like your choice. (Ayestas v. Davis)

Roberts on which of two ways the statute should be read: “Which of those do you think is how the statute should be read?”

Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller: “It's the second, Mr. Chief Justice. And we know that …”

Roberts: “I was hoping you were going to say the first.”

An “obscure” question from Breyer. (Wilson v. Sellers)

Breyer: “Now, that's extreme, but you see my point. Okay? What's the answer to my point?”

Georgia Solicitor General Sarah Warren: “Justice Breyer, I'm not sure exactly what the, what the question was.”

Breyer: “Sorry. Well, from your pleasant expression, it sounded to me as if you were understanding my obscure question.”

Who's really to judge? (Oil States Energy Services v. Greene's Energy Group)

Roberts: “The chief judge?”

Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart: “The chief judge of the [Patent Trial and Appeal Board."

Roberts: "You're talking about the executive employee?"

Stewart: "An executive branch official. The chief judge of the PTAB …"

Roberts: "When we say 'judge,' we usually mean something different."

Stewart: OK.

Kagan doesn't agree. (Jesner v. Arab Bank)

Kirkland & Ellis partner Paul Clement: "With respect, Justice Breyer, I don't think under Sosa my burden is to show that they're never liable. My burden—the burden is on the other side to show a specific obligatory universal norm of corporate liability."

Breyer: "Exactly right. I completely agree. I agree. Now given that, what are …"

Justice Elena Kagan: "I don't agree."

Politicians like gerrymandering. (Gill v. Whitford)

Gorsuch: "Do you see any impediment to Congress acting in this area [partisan gerrymandering]?”

Campaign Legal Center's Paul Smith: “Other than the fact that politicians are never going to fix gerrymandering. They like gerrymandering.”

Party like a justice. (District of Columbia v. Wesby)

Kagan: “And when looked at from the reasonable partygoer's view, there are these parties that, once long ago, I used to be invited to, where you didn't know the host, but you know Joe is having a party. And can I say that long, long ago, marijuana was maybe present at those parties? And, you know, so—and you know, it just is not obvious that the reasonable partygoer is supposed to walk into this apartment and say, 'Got to get out of here.'”

Oh, nevermind! (Christie v. NCAA)

Breyer: “If I've got your argument right just now, just say yes.”

Theodore Olson of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher: “You had it right before.”

Breyer: “But I had it right just now? OK, you weren't—forget it. Forget it. Forget it. Go ahead.”

“Is there a question, there, your honor?” (Gill v. Whitford)

Justice Samuel Alito Jr.: “Mr. Smith, can I just say something—ask you a question about the political science? [The justice then took 64 lines in the argument transcript to reach his conclusion.] And there are all of these questions. This is 2017—is the time to jump into this. That's a question.”

Campaign Legal Center's Paul Smith: “Is there a question there, your honor?”

Alito: “Yeah, there is a question there. There are about 10 of them.”

Read more:

Gorsuch's Gitmo Apology, Memorable Footnotes and Law Clerk Diversity: SCOTUS Headlines

Most Memorable Footnote? Here's What a Few Lawyers Told Us.

Kagan Says Repeat Players at SCOTUS 'Know What It Is We Like'

Kate Adams, Apple's Incoming General Counsel, Was 'Peacemaker' as SCOTUS Clerk

This SCOTUS Brief Is Good Enough to Eat. But Will Justices Bite?