Justice Kennedy was once asked in a question-and-answer period with a group of attorneys and judges how he manages to read the enormous number of briefs filed. Justice Kennedy mentioned that, among other things, he sometimes finds it helpful to take briefs home and listen to opera while reading. Some take longer than others, he explained: There are "one-opera cases," while others are "two-opera cases."
"I have a rule like that when I write those briefs," an attorney in the audience said. "I have a one six-pack brief and a two six-pack brief." To which Kennedy responded, "I think I remember your last one. It was a three six-pack brief."
Anthony M. Kennedy, Assoc. Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, Speech at the Forum Club of the Palm Beaches (May 14, 2010) (video link here).
Showing posts with label Quote. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Quote. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Monday, July 5, 2010
Quote: Tip of the Iceberg
Last week, the Supreme Court took center stage with Justice Stevens' retirement, the Term's final decisions, and the Kagan confirmation hearings. Tomorrow, Appellate Daily will turn its attention to the other appellate news around the country. Hope everyone has had a great holiday weekend.
________________________
[T]he eighty cases that the Supreme Court hears annually represent the small tip of a vast iceberg. . . . [R]ather than the Supreme Court of the United States deciding every important question of law, most determinative legal interpretations occur instead in the federal courts of appeals, in the state supreme courts, and in state appellate courts.
Stephen G. Breyer, Reflections on the Role of Appellate Courts: A View from the Supreme Court, 8 J. App. Prac. & Process 91, 93 (2006).
________________________
[T]he eighty cases that the Supreme Court hears annually represent the small tip of a vast iceberg. . . . [R]ather than the Supreme Court of the United States deciding every important question of law, most determinative legal interpretations occur instead in the federal courts of appeals, in the state supreme courts, and in state appellate courts.
Stephen G. Breyer, Reflections on the Role of Appellate Courts: A View from the Supreme Court, 8 J. App. Prac. & Process 91, 93 (2006).
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Quote: Laugh, Clown, Laugh!
[W]hen the questions come, I do not rejoice! I may essay a smile, exude an air of confidence and self-assurance, a certain lightness of the spirit, as if to say "Gee, I'm glad you asked that!" But, all the time I'm thinking: " . . . I explained that 15 minutes ago, when he was gathering wool, and now I'm never going to get in . . . my Big Punch at the end." My axiom is "Do not rejoice! Suffer in false and hypocritical jubilation! Laugh, clown, laugh!"
Milton S. Gould, Oral Argument Losing Its Appeal, Nat'l L.J., Mar. 23, 1981, at 15, 32 (responding to John W. Davis' article The Argument of an Appeal that encouraged appellate attorneys to "rejoice" when the judges ask questions).
Milton S. Gould, Oral Argument Losing Its Appeal, Nat'l L.J., Mar. 23, 1981, at 15, 32 (responding to John W. Davis' article The Argument of an Appeal that encouraged appellate attorneys to "rejoice" when the judges ask questions).
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Quote: Why the Handshake Never Caught On
[There is a] tradition in the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, where at the end of oral argument the judges come down from the bench and shake hands with the lawyers. It is a very endearing custom emblematic of the grace and hospitality of the region encompassed by the Fourth Circuit.
Things are different in the District of Columbia Circuit. . . . There is a famous episode from the early nineteenth century involving Judge Buckner Thruston, who was in the habit of finding the lawyers appearing before him deficient in many respects, and in the habit of giving voice to that view. On one occasion, a lawyer responded in kind, letting Judge Thruston know that he, the lawyer, found the Judge equally deficient. The Evening Star explained what happened next: "Judge Thruston's reaction was to hustle down from the bench and berate his critic as 'a scoundrel and poltroon,' whom he challenged to step 'outside and fight.'" Perhaps those sorts of beginnings explain why the tradition never really caught hold in D.C. as it has in Richmond.
John G. Roberts, Jr., What Makes the D.C. Circuit Different? A Historical View, 92 Va. L. Rev. 375, 375-76 (2006) (footnote omitted).
Things are different in the District of Columbia Circuit. . . . There is a famous episode from the early nineteenth century involving Judge Buckner Thruston, who was in the habit of finding the lawyers appearing before him deficient in many respects, and in the habit of giving voice to that view. On one occasion, a lawyer responded in kind, letting Judge Thruston know that he, the lawyer, found the Judge equally deficient. The Evening Star explained what happened next: "Judge Thruston's reaction was to hustle down from the bench and berate his critic as 'a scoundrel and poltroon,' whom he challenged to step 'outside and fight.'" Perhaps those sorts of beginnings explain why the tradition never really caught hold in D.C. as it has in Richmond.
John G. Roberts, Jr., What Makes the D.C. Circuit Different? A Historical View, 92 Va. L. Rev. 375, 375-76 (2006) (footnote omitted).
Monday, May 17, 2010
Quote: The Key Swing Vote . . . Justice Scalia?
[T]he one area of law where I do think that the sort of 5-4, "Where is Justice Kennedy going to come out?" dynamic does not hold true increasingly is the criminal docket of the Court. . . . [I]n some ways on the criminal docket, the key swing vote is actually Justice Scalia.
There are a number of cases in the Apprendi line of cases, other Sixth Amendment cases, also cases involving the Confrontation Clause, where Justice Scalia has [ruled in favor of the criminal defendant].
Paul D. Clement
Former Solicitor General and Partner, King & Spalding
Sixth Circuit Judicial Conference
May 5, 2010
There are a number of cases in the Apprendi line of cases, other Sixth Amendment cases, also cases involving the Confrontation Clause, where Justice Scalia has [ruled in favor of the criminal defendant].
Paul D. Clement
Former Solicitor General and Partner, King & Spalding
Sixth Circuit Judicial Conference
May 5, 2010
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Quote: Avoid a Maginot Line Mentality
[P]rocedural rules are like hills on a battlefield. Those fortunate enough to command the heights should not hesitate to make use of, and improve, their strategic position; the appellee, particularly, will benefit from showing that his opponent['s] arguments turn on facts found against him below. . . .
This said, it is equally important that you avoid placing undue emphasis on the manipulation of procedural rules and ignoring your opponent's attacks on the merits. . . . much as France's vigilance once was lulled by undue reliance on the supposedly impregnable Maginot Line. The mere invocation of verbal formulae will not suffice to rid you of an annoying appellant: you must show that the procedural rules—and the substantive rule of law . . . dictate a favorable outcome.
Irving R. Kaufman, Appellate Advocacy in the Federal Courts, 79 F.R.D. 165, 168 (1978) (at the time, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, explaining his maxim, "Avoid a Maginot Line mentality").
This said, it is equally important that you avoid placing undue emphasis on the manipulation of procedural rules and ignoring your opponent's attacks on the merits. . . . much as France's vigilance once was lulled by undue reliance on the supposedly impregnable Maginot Line. The mere invocation of verbal formulae will not suffice to rid you of an annoying appellant: you must show that the procedural rules—and the substantive rule of law . . . dictate a favorable outcome.
Irving R. Kaufman, Appellate Advocacy in the Federal Courts, 79 F.R.D. 165, 168 (1978) (at the time, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, explaining his maxim, "Avoid a Maginot Line mentality").
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)