IT'S HERE!

  • A NEW BOOK BY EVAN SCHAEFFER



    How to Feed a Lawyer (and Other Irreverent Observations from the Legal Underground)

    Click on the book cover for details!

« | Main | »

September 29, 2005

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c2d4b53ef00d83459572053ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference :

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!

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

My Photo

About Evan Schaeffer

Search Beyond the Underground


Sitemeter


cc