Unprecedented Obstructionism

Did I read Satchel correctly? He is accusing the freking ABA of racism and prejudice against women? The ABA? kuckoo
 
So you're saying that litigation experience is the highest criterion? One of the highest? Why is that experience so valued? Are you equating all "courtroom experience" with litigation? Are you taking into account appellate courts?
 
Yes, I think that if you are being asked to manage a courtroom, experience in that courtroom would be the most important criteria (but not necessarily the sole criteria)
 
Ok, so you think that litigation experience is the sine qua non of running a courtroom. Check.

You feel that the learning curve for obtaining such experience is so steep and takes so long that the only way one can garner such experience is to be a veteran litigator. Check.

You are ignoring the appellate aspect of my prior question. Check.

You feel that a judge (or perhaps even justice) should first and foremost be adept at "managing a courtroom" (and that this is best done by having litigation experience), not so much at interpreting the law. Check.

I find substantive weaknesses in many of your conclusions.
 
Imo, rule changes are needed to allow governing more on a simple majority status rather than on a super-majority basis.
 
Still waiting to hear why Obama has done such an abyssmal job in keeping up with the judicial nomination process. Seems to me that someone with as much legislative and management experience as Obama has would be able to manage that process better.
 
Perham,

I've tried cases in front of judges who had courtroom experience and some who did not. Within five minutes you can tell if the judge has courtroom experience, and it's scary when you realize that he doesn't. It is more than about "managing a courtroom." It is also about interpreting the law.

With respect to the appellate aspect of your question if you're appointing a trial judge, he should have trial experience. If you're appointing an appellate court judge, he could have either trial or appellate court experience.

Yes, the learning curve is steep. A judge is going to have to resolve disputes dealing with procedure and evidence - stuff you're really only going to learn by doing, not just studying. He's going to hear strong arguments from lawyers from both sides. He's going to need to be able to tell who's right and who's wrong. That's often a difficult call, even if the judge has courtroom experience and has dealt with similar issues in his own practice.

It's tough enough to have to preside over cases involving areas of practice you don't know. For example, I could preside over a personal injury with no problem, but make me preside over an intellectual property case or a water rights case, and it would take a lot of effort. If in addition to that I wasn't an expert in procedure and evidence, I'd be thoroughly lost. It would be an injustice to the parties.

What are the consequences of getting it wrong? Well, it can be grounds for reversal on appeal, which drags the cases out for years and costs both parties huge money in attorney's fees. Furthermore, if the appellate court orders a new trial, you're looking at a big waste of judicial resources and a backlogged court docket.

Set your politics aside for a minute. Do you really question this? Would you want a doctor who had never cut on somebody in his life to perform brain surgery on you? Probably not. You don't want a judge who's never been in a courtroom presiding over your case for the same reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top