AND HE'S NEVER PARTIED ALL NIGHT LONG WITH FAMOUS ROCK STARS . . . Today on NPR, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid explained why he voted against John Roberts--

No one could question his legal brilliance. But the fact is, he's never taken a deposition, never voir dired a jury, never argued a case to a jury. I think that that's not what I personally am looking for in someone going to the Supreme Court.

Yes, it's true: trial lawyers rule! And wouldn't the Supreme Court be twice as effective with draft beer in the robing room? It's just the sort of lesson a lifetime of taking depositions and arguing to juries will teach you. Take it from me, a trial lawyer. Like Sen. Reid, I hope Bush gets it right the next time. Link from Althouse.

Comments

[stan]

Yeah,

But in the end Reid may have had a pretty good point there.

[Evan]

Stan: Oh, this is great. We can carry on an intellectual discussion in the comment section of this weblog just like they do at Professor Althouse's weblog. (When my friends say they're scared to leave a comment here, I tell them they're being silly--then I remember I'm the same way when it comes to comments on the Althouse weblog!)

So, to resume our discussion: what was Reid's point, exactly? I didn't quite get it.

[Evan]

Stan: Come to think of it, I think I had a pretty good point about draft beer in the robing room. It's just a metaphor, of course, but beer also figured into some advice I once gave to a federal judge suffering from federal judgitis. A little beer goes a long way in trying to understand the common man.

Is it possible that Sen. Reid and I are both making the same point?

[PaulNoonan]

Evan! Evan! Did you see that Illinois made CLE courses mandatory today? There's a nice expensive waste of time.

http://www.theconglomerate.org/2005/09/mandatory_cle.html#comment-9862824

[Evan]

Paul: Actually, Jeremy Richey just emailed me about it before I saw your comment. I didn't even know it was on the way. I already have to do 30 hours in Missouri, and those will count (I think) in Illinois--but now I'll have twice the paperwork.

[Stan]

Evan,

I think the point might be that while appellate practice is a very different animal from actual trial practice and that Roberts has never so much as filed a complaint in any court. That is why you get asinine decisions in criminal and civil law, such as using a dog for searches is not enhancing a police officer's natural abilities or that it is perfectly reaosnable to bind people to contracts that are printed on the back of tickets they get months after purchasing said ticket.

And you are right about the beer thing, but that is pretty much a universal truth, applying to all people. I still am not sure why people could be drunk all day in the 1800's and after lunch up through the 1980's and now its taboo unless its the weekend.

[Evan]

Stan: You say, "Now its taboo unless its the weekend."

Actually, it depends on who you're having lunch with.

A year ago, I did a post about drinking at lunch that received pretty many comments. I know, I know: I seem to have a link for all occasions.

[Eh Nonymous]

While I can't speak to the beer thing (for me it's Guinness or nothing, and usually nothing), I can agree with Stan: there's a huge qualitative difference in opinions coming from a former trial attorney (think Thurgood Marshall) than from someone who has only ever argued in front of appellate judges, or only lectured to law students and written academic papers and given presentations to other academics, or only ever written memos at high levels. Those other skills are all impressive and interesting skills...

... but we're oversubscribed at the moment. How about another judge/ legislator, like O'Connor was? How about a trial judge? How about a trial attorney? Anyone who's done both criminal defense and prosecution? Anyone who's ever represented both the alleged infringer and the intellectual property owner in litigation? Anyone who's ever won a class action, and lost one? Or worked both on an hourly rate and a contingent fee basis? Why? Because it _matters_ in a lot of these cases what your background is: which arguments will you take seriously?

What bs can you detect? What will you believe? What are you _inclined_ to believe?

Have you represented an indigent person - not on appeal in a hopeless death penalty appeal (although that's not a bad start), but from the beginning, from intake through filing through trial? Have you ever done an immigration case?

My list of qualifications for SupremeCourtdom are much more stringent than Bush's. He just seems to require

1) brilliance
2) conservatism
3) confirmability
4) ability to run a 5 minute mile.

[Carroll]

How is it that no one is commenting about retired Justice O'Connor's remarks abut the Supreme Court and current administration tactics?
http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Retired_Supreme_Court_Justice_hits_attacks_0310.html

some attention seems warranted!