How many lawyers do we have here?

[tth2]

Actually, I'm not sure I agree with that. Thurgood Marshall argued before the Court before he was a member of it and had experience as a litigator. I'm not saying they should be prominent practioners, but some experience is important. Don't you guys think that some of the reasons why there's confusion in rulings or in their application to the lower courts, in stems from the Court's increasing inability to relate to the problems that are present in the current judicial system. My recollection is that other Justices have had more practical experience either as trial judges or lawyers at some point in their careers, even if it is early.

Marshall primarily litigated civils rights cases on behalf of the ACLU or NAACP, didn't he? So he had a lot of first-hand experience with the courts, but I wouldn't call his work very representative of typical private practice.

 

I totally agree with you, however, that the SC can't relate to the issues that everyday lawyers and courts have to deal with, and a large part stems from their lack of experience with the "real world". This is a systemic problem that actually runs all the way to law school faculties. I don't know about the law schools you guys went to, but most of the tenure track faculty at my school, and at all of the elite law schools, were graduates of the top law schools who had clerked at the appellate and/or SC level and had thereafter spent, at most, 2 or 3 years in practice before returning to academia. Very few of my profs had any grasp of real world legal issues, and the only practical advice most of us ever got was from the adjunct profs teaching more specialized classes.

 

And in comparison, W&M was a relatively down to earth school. At least when we took Evidence, we actually studied the federal rules of evidence. Friends of mine who went to Yale, for instance, tell me that in their Evidence class, they studied the theory of evidence, and never once actually read the federal rules until they started practicing.

[Norrin_Radd]

Interesting discussion.

 

What I meant by unknown quantity is that no one really knows how Roberts will serve on the Supreme Court. He can say whatever he wants, but only time will tell how he will rule. Once he's in, he's in. And as the Chief Justice.

 

[esquirecomics]

Interesting discussion.

 

What I meant by unknown quantity is that no one really knows how Roberts will serve on the Supreme Court. He can say whatever he wants, but only time will tell how he will rule. Once he's in, he's in. And as the Chief Justice.

 

 

That's usually the case with many of the nominees nowadays. The less known about them, the easier it is to achieve confirmation. Still, history has shown that Presidents have been surprised as to how their nominees actually handled themselves once on the bench. Several presumed Conservatives became quite moderate and even liberal on some issues.

[Norrin_Radd]

Interesting discussion.

 

What I meant by unknown quantity is that no one really knows how Roberts will serve on the Supreme Court. He can say whatever he wants, but only time will tell how he will rule. Once he's in, he's in. And as the Chief Justice.

 

 

That's usually the case with many of the nominees nowadays. The less known about them, the easier it is to achieve confirmation. Still, history has shown that Presidents have been surprised as to how their nominees actually handled themselves once on the bench. Several presumed Conservatives became quite moderate and even liberal on some issues.

 

From what I've heard of the confirmation hearings on the radio, he sounds competent. Guess we'll see how the SC shifts over the next ten years with two new judges.

[Foolkiller]

I think Kennedy is the most notable of that group. When Casey was heard, I'm sure conservatives were hopeful... but Kennedy, a Catholic, sided with the plurality.

 

Interesting discussion.

 

What I meant by unknown quantity is that no one really knows how Roberts will serve on the Supreme Court. He can say whatever he wants, but only time will tell how he will rule. Once he's in, he's in. And as the Chief Justice.

 

 

That's usually the case with many of the nominees nowadays. The less known about them, the easier it is to achieve confirmation. Still, history has shown that Presidents have been surprised as to how their nominees actually handled themselves once on the bench. Several presumed Conservatives became quite moderate and even liberal on some issues.

[tth2]

From what I've heard of the confirmation hearings on the radio, he sounds competent.

"competent"? The guy is a superstar. If you had asked me to design the ideal resume and career progression of a candidate for the SC, it would look virtually identical to Roberts`.

 

1. graduate near the top of your class from a top 5 law school and be an editor on law review (check)

 

2. clerk for a legendary federal appellate judge (Henry Friendly) and then a supreme court justice (Rehnquist) (check)

 

3. work in the Solicitor General`s office and argue cases before the SC (check)

 

4. work as a partner at a major law firm specializing in arguing before the SC (check)

 

5. be appointed as a federal appellate judge on the DC Circuit (check)

[skybolt]

So who do the lawyers on these boards think will be nominated next? Gonzalez? a conservative female, etc.?

[Foolkiller]

I'd like to see a qualified woman get the next position. I think it's important that if possible, there be some more female representation on the court, though honestly, the way it should be done is the most qualified candidate period gets the nod.

[tth2]

the way it should be done is the most qualified candidate period gets the nod.

If that would ever happen, then Richard Posner would've been nominated a long time ago, but he'll never be because neither the conservatives or the liberals trust him.

 

Clearly Bush would like to nominate the first Hispanic, but he doesn't seem to have hardcore conservative support for Gonzalez, and deep battle-lines will be drawn for O'Connor's position, since it truly could be a determinative vote on the Court. I've heard Garza's name bandied about as an alternative if he wants to make a Hispanic nomination. It could very well end up being a woman, although most of the names that have been mentioned have not been that impressive, in my opinion. One possibility is Edith Jones, who I do have respect for.

[Foolkiller]

Posner is a brilliant jurist (though reading his books is a cure for insomnia), and despite his political problems, you could say the same about Bork, who was also a brilliant jurist.

 

I like Edith Jones as well, but honestly, probably not as familiar with her as you are. I've only read others observations on her, and even that has been limited.

 

While we're discussing legal issues, has anyone read Marci Hamilton's God v. the Gavel? It's on my table next to be read, and the other lawyers I know who are into Constitutional goings on have raved about this book.

[the blob]

roberts will be confirmed and, honestly, though i don't want the court packed with conservatives, it's hard to argue that rhenquist shouldn't be replaced by another conservative. maybe o'connor will be allowed to rescind her resignation and we'll go back to the status quo. unlikely she'd go that route though.

 

as for real world experience, i think judges forget a lot of that, even when they have plenty, once they take the bench.

[esquirecomics]

Are there any lawyers on the boards who work in the LA area? If so, please PM me.

[Red Hook]

We all hate lawyers until we need one ourselves. Then all of a sudden your lawyer is your new best friend.

 

 

You could say that about proctologists too.

[tth2]

We all hate lawyers until we need one ourselves. Then all of a sudden your lawyer is your new best friend.

 

 

You could say that about proctologists too.

Just old guys like you.

[Red Hook]

What, you gonna' give me the finger now?

[jimjum12]

GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

[esquirecomics]

Are there any lawyers on the boards who work in the LA area? If so, please PM me.

 

Correction: PM FFB.

[action1kid]

Oh but do you recall the most famous lawyer of all?