See, you keep saying that judging a case and arguing a case must be different, but you haven't ever said HOW they are different -- what analysis does a judge apply that counsel does not?
As counsel, I look at the issue and the applicable law, and decide how I am going to argue that the law should be applied in way "x." As part of doing this, I consider all the possible ways that the law could be applied, and also consider how my opponent is going to argue the law be applied (lets say that opposing counsel will argue that the law should be applied in way "y").
As judge, I look at the issue and the applicable law, as well as the arguments for applying the law in way "x" or "y," as presented by the different sides. Then I decide how I feel the law should actually be applied, whether that be way "x" or way "y" or way "z".
So, the analysis is the same, the only difference is the final step.
"There must also be some skill to managing a courtroom and docket that is different than lawyering. "
Sorry, but this argument doesn't work either. SCOTUS is a unique institution, with its own rules that are quite different from any of the lower courts (with the possible exception of some of the state supreme courts). Serving as a federal judge for umpteen years doesn't mean that you have any experience with the SCOTUS rules of procedure.
The SCOTUS courtroom functions entirely differently from other courts. For one thing, there really isn't a "docket" to manage -- cases are argued on a single day. There is no discovery or witness testimony or cross-filing of motions to dismiss. Also, the bulk of the "management" of the Supreme Court falls to the various clerks and staff. As a justice, her "management" of the court will basically be organizing her own chambers and voting on cert petitions (along with the other eight justices). Experience managing a courtroom as a judge really doesn't translate here.
"There must be many judges in the US who have superior qualifications"
But your point wasn't that there were other judges with superior qualifications, but that she was "unqualified." Big difference between the two.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2005-10-05 03:49 pm (UTC)As counsel, I look at the issue and the applicable law, and decide how I am going to argue that the law should be applied in way "x." As part of doing this, I consider all the possible ways that the law could be applied, and also consider how my opponent is going to argue the law be applied (lets say that opposing counsel will argue that the law should be applied in way "y").
As judge, I look at the issue and the applicable law, as well as the arguments for applying the law in way "x" or "y," as presented by the different sides. Then I decide how I feel the law should actually be applied, whether that be way "x" or way "y" or way "z".
So, the analysis is the same, the only difference is the final step.
"There must also be some skill to managing a courtroom and docket that is different than lawyering. "
Sorry, but this argument doesn't work either. SCOTUS is a unique institution, with its own rules that are quite different from any of the lower courts (with the possible exception of some of the state supreme courts). Serving as a federal judge for umpteen years doesn't mean that you have any experience with the SCOTUS rules of procedure.
The SCOTUS courtroom functions entirely differently from other courts. For one thing, there really isn't a "docket" to manage -- cases are argued on a single day. There is no discovery or witness testimony or cross-filing of motions to dismiss. Also, the bulk of the "management" of the Supreme Court falls to the various clerks and staff. As a justice, her "management" of the court will basically be organizing her own chambers and voting on cert petitions (along with the other eight justices). Experience managing a courtroom as a judge really doesn't translate here.
"There must be many judges in the US who have superior qualifications"
But your point wasn't that there were other judges with superior qualifications, but that she was "unqualified." Big difference between the two.