A lot of what he heard scalia saying from the bench reminded him of the italian opera. Sounds like a very good character. He was a music major at harvard and at yale and then went to law school and he said he was reading these dissents and said heres an operatic character thomas cooley. So that was the origin. While were in a theatrical mood, you serve as a martial in the Supreme Court. Detected a new perspective on the workings of the Supreme Court of the United States . All it did was make me into a hypocrite for what i criticized the justice of taking part. Im not sure who knows what i was talking about. The justices are out and about constantly. One of the things like to do is have mock trials where real Supreme Court advocates argue fake cases about hamlet or don quixote but whatever. This is a case where Tommy Goldstein and Carter Phillips argued about whether don quixote needs to be committed before ginsburg breyer, the d. C. Circuit, and you know, they are cheap laughs. They raise money for the shakespeare theatre. I dont know what the hell i was doing there. [laughter] but you did a good job eric. Joan, also mentioned you were a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize this year. Sorry you didnt get it. [applause] it was for a series called the echo chamber, and why dont you tell us what that was about . It was about the lawyers who appear before the court. Weve mentioned a couple of names repeatedly today including paul clement and Carter Phelps and Tommy Goldstein to adam just referred you. I think all of us many of you and us have noticed we had someone repeat players over the years coming up before the justices and also having success with their petitions. What we decide to do was to actually try to measure this. Our data team went back through 17,000 petitions and isolated on 66 lawyers who had a remarkable success rate. Going back over a decade we found that fewer than 1 of these lawyers had 43 of the cases before the justices and that 51 of these had very deep corporatized. We were looking at who these people are, why they are so successful before the justices and then raised the question whether the justices have added a new criterion to their decision on which cases to take and what it does to the merits of the lawyer argue not just the merits of the case. So we are able to a lot of data work both, then it would get the justices about the same are you leaning towards repeat players because of their skills and expertise . Possibly ignoring lawyers who are not as polished but to a very good cases on the merits or dating try for granted. They basically said we like it the way it is. We are professional court, like the professionalism of the repeat players. We think its important we have the highest quality lawyering possible. Across the board of liberals and conservatives alike this is what should be. After the series ran justices scalia and taken happened to be onstage down in louisiana and someone asked about this reuters series and they said thats true. We said it. We like it. We thought it was important to least let people know what happens up there and how the truth is your chances are better with want of these folks will cost a lot of money. Unless they are doing it pro bono. Which they tended to once a case is taken. The cert state is the heavier lift than the oral argument stage because youre competing of course with thousands of cases each term. The justices themselves a we know a good case and we are not missing. We are not missing issues. If its a really good important issue it will be back. Do you have a sense of what it costs to hire one of these guys . Yes. Some of these lawyers Specialist Group of up to now practicing practicing who were former solicitors general, they can charge a thousand or more per hour for the time spent on a cert petition. Even to do and make us can be five figures. Do an amicus. Somebody might do it pro bono if they think its got a good chance and if it will have the opportunity to argue before the justices. This phenomena of the lawyers are drifting towards certain high quality lawyers has occurred at the same time that the docket was contracting, they are hearing fewer and fewer cases. The skill of these highpriced lawyers who can come in at very, very high hourly wages go or or in some cases someone may charge a flat fee, it varies by firm. You know again they turn are trying altar boys to get attention of his justices have thousands of cases before them. At the same time what reluctant wait into any areas that until a particularly center we didnt mention this but i know all my colleagues know about the process they have about reenlisting cases to make sure they really, really want to grant a case. In the past they would get all the petitions and to decide what you want to grant, and they would grant but now theyre holding over that decision for at least another week to decide we would want it . The clerks are riskaverse and the justice systems are riskaverse but if you want to take a case they feel that perfectly teed up. Spent i guess they had experiences with a granted cert only later to dismiss it. I said i was a time for questions. We got 10 minutes left so those of you have questions about when to call on you at your seat. Yet to go to one of the microphones so cspan to hear what you have to say. Yes . [inaudible] a great legal writing guru. It depends. Theres the kind of cases, the kind you have to write immediately and there are good word to work to look for our affirmed or reversed. And then my predecessor Linda Greenhouse gave me some advice. Start with the dissent. It will tell you whats really going on. If youre looking for a quote if theres nothing better, no better place to look, look at the beginning at the end of the opinion itself in various sections of the opinion. That tends to be where they sum up a little bit. Thats a place to look for a quote if thats what youre doing. The other thing at the end of this term, all three of us, for those, five of us who have to write right away to stay downstairs rather than going to the courtroom. But the good thing if you can go to the courtroom is that you do here a summary of the holding in the case. And so youve got that in your point pretty clearly, you know how the case came out, you know the reasoning for it. And to then as adam said when you get downstairs you can quickly look at the dissent to see what the other side of the issue was. And so its very helpful if there is a time to go upstairs, let them explain it a little bit before you have to get down. But i do confess to people, i say if you read my store online right after it happened, that doesnt mean i have read the opinion. It only means ive gotten enough that i can write this piece. I would use it for myself we are downstairs. And pass out an opinion at 10 00 and is a Justice Kennedy will read our opinion of soandso. I take it first of all, check the votes because whether its 54, and then check the syllabus for the main headings, the main holdings. You want to know who are from and refers to check the dissent quickly to see whether they said this is a big decision and outrage or whatever, then look start looking with a yolo pad for some quotable lines commuters look at the beginning, sometimes at the end. And at the same time i like to listen to it in my example, Justice Kennedy is saying upstairs because that helps. And reading it helps at the same time. Id like to think in about 60 seconds or 90 seconds i sort of decided what i should go right. My question stems out of the earlier discussion with regards to Clarence Thomas comments on one of these [inaudible] i feel like, whether a comment is inappropriate, like what you feel is inappropriate depends on your familiar with the legal issues in standard applet. So my question is how do you deal with writing this individualistic viewpoint knowing that youre dealing with a wide range of familiarity with the law as well as knowing these are certain things people may latch onto . Anybody . You know im not sure that kind of a site is a legal point or im not sure he is making a legal point. I think hes making a human point or a moral point of perhaps an inappropriate point or he can appoint a talk show host might make and i dont know it needs a lot of legal context for people to evaluate whether they agree with the point or not. [inaudible] you may see in the court with respect to stare decisis. Like the court is visiting affirmative action issue. Justice clay wrote a dissent in which he wouldve to note the dormant clause which goes back almost 200 you. Qc whether they tend to wait out more or or less than they used to . The data seems to show that this court is no more activist than earlier courts across two dimensions that of overturning precedent and that of striking down legislation. Only a couple times each term and this term was no different. Let me ask a final question or two about the future. I saw on my email this morning that summit in billings, montana, had gone to a county clerk yesterday and filed for a marriage license for his polygamist marriage relying on the decision in obergefell. Is that if you going to be before the court in a couple of years . Does Justice Kennedys opinion tell us how theyre going to roll onto . I dont think it did. Certainly the chief justice brought that up in his dissent and it without about it to some length i thought. You know will it be before them in a couple of years . I kind of doubt it but i think that they will certainly be a lot going on in the lower courts. I think there is a polygamist marriage case thats pending that would come their way. But before the nine was decided obergefell was decided. I think we all believe that the next role, round of this is going to be about religious exemptions and bakers and florists and what these state laws do that say that people dont have to perform some of these tasks that they dont want to aid in samesex marriages. Seems to me thats probably the next wave of things. The thing you see following the court overturned is these big changes in the law or a long time coming, and when only after theres been a big switch in public opinion. The two examples we talked about, the notion of the right to bear arms back in the 70s, you know Warren Burger sort of made fun of that. But over time the nra and the whole notion that the Second Amendment wasnt about malicious. It was about the right to bear arms. Became so much sort of the publics understanding that by the time the Supreme Court finally took it up it wasnt a surprise for the first time they rolled yes, it does. As you know, evolved through it the whole notion of gay marriage it wouldve been a surprise and shock in the 80s and the 90s, but by the time they finally did it come it was not like new news for us. It was sort of an accepted understood, not everybody agreed but accepted. Thats what its always a mistake to say the logic of this opinion means about, you know. We went to 10 years 20 or so know what it means but it will be a while before polygamy comes back i think. Famous last words. On that note we have a 90 minute window in cspan and were just a few seconds from a so thank you all for coming and hope to see you again next year. [applause] [inaudible conversations] here are just a few of our featured programs for the threeday Holiday Weekend on cspan networks. Three men and women believed to be members of the puerto rican nationalist gang that in november 1950 attempted the assassination of president truman opened fire from the visitors gallery of the house of representatives. Five congressmen were hit then jenson, davis, bentley of michigan who was seriously injured. The gun wielders goes the evil distinction of having perpetrated a criminal outrage almost unique in americas history. It was one of the most violent act that occurred in the chamber, and they were debates right after that. We cant let this happen again. We need to wall off the visitors gallery with bulletproof last so that this can never happen again again. And the more the members talked about that and thought about it, they said thats a bad idea this is the peoples house and the people cant be walled off from the floor and from whats going on. The Capitol Building is a simple and that makes it a target. Imaging the british burned the building in 1814. There was a bombing toward world war i by a professor who is opposed to american support for the allies. That was issued in 1954. What happened in 1971 was a bomb set off by the Weather Underground opposed the vietnam war. In 1883 there was another bombing in the senate side by a Group Opposed to president reagans foreign policy. In 1998 there 1998 there were two capitol policeman shot and killed at the capital. There have been those instances over time, and yet the capital has remained remarkably open building. Senate historian don ritchie a farmhouse a story ray smock on the history of the house and senate, its leaders, characters and prominent defense sunday night at eight eastern and pacific on cspans q a. Youyou are watching booktv on cspan2
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.