Betsy's Page

Monday, September 12, 2005

Edward Kennedy has found a hook to tie Katrina to his grilling of Judge Roberts.
"Americans will have the opportunity for the first time to hear Judge Roberts's views on the major issues," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), the committee's most senior member, said in an interview. Katrina's devastation underscores the hearing's importance, he said.

"What the American people have seen is this incredible disparity in which those people who had cars and money got out, and those people who were impoverished died," Kennedy said. The question for Roberts, he said, is whether he stands for "a fairer, more just nation" or will he use "narrow, stingy interpretations of the law to frustrate progress."
I'm not sure which stingy interpretations he's talking of, but I guess the implication is that those who want to interpret the Constitution narrowly are trying to keep poor people down. I guess Roberts is somehow connected to the conditions at the Superdome.

But don't expect Roberts to be tripped up in the grilling he'll undergo this week. In an article in yesterday's paper, the Washington Post looked at the elite group of lawyers who are appellate lawyers appearing before the Supreme Court. It's a very interesting look at the skills involved in being a Supreme Court specialist.
But if his advocacy career offers few clues about what Roberts thinks, it does help illuminate how he thinks. The top Supreme Court advocates do not rely on grand theories; they delve into the minutiae of facts and law on a case-by-case basis. They analyze cases from every angle and know every weakness in their own arguments. They persuade with painstaking research and rigorous logic, not Perry Mason-style theatrics. They don't have to mingle much with the real world, but they do have to express complex ideas in clear terms. They are buttoned-down institutionalists; none of them wear bolo ties in court.

"It's a very intellectual practice, a lot like being a judge," says Richard J. Lazarus, a former Roberts roommate who runs Georgetown University's Supreme Court Institute. "You can't be dogmatic. You've got to be able to see every side, and that's what made John so terrific."
This experience has given him so much practice and he's been putting in further practice for this week's hearings.
Roberts was compulsive in his preparations. He ran three moot courts for each case, and spent countless hours -- not all of them billable -- fine-tuning his arguments. He boiled down his arguments to a few main points, then committed them to index cards and memorized them, then shuffled the cards to practice delivering them in different orders with different segues. He often felt ill before entering the high court, but at the lectern he was unflappable and meticulous, answering questions with the calm demeanor of an adviser without a rooting interest.

"When I'm at the podium, everyone knows I'm an advocate," says Lawrence S. Robbins, who worked with Roberts in the solicitor general's office and is now a court specialist at his own firm. "But John doesn't come across as a salesman, not for a minute. Don't get me wrong: He is a salesman. But it just sounds like he's telling the truth and you're crazy if you disagree."

Those who know Roberts say the Senate Judiciary Committee can expect a similar performance when he testifies on his own behalf. He will seem to be mulling his responses, but he will have anticipated just about every question and will have prepared every answer in advance. Nothing will sway him from his script.
Of course, nothing will sway Edward Kennedy from his script either. But I suspect that John Roberts will be more than a match for him. That's what I'm looking forward to seeing is how he handles such questions without saying more than he need say to follow the Ginsburg pattern.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:42 AM 0 comments

Comments:

Edward Kennedy has found a hook to tie Katrina to his grilling of Judge Roberts.

"Americans will have the opportunity for the first time to hear Judge Roberts's views on the major issues," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), the committee's most senior member, said in an interview. Katrina's devastation underscores the hearing's importance, he said.

"What the American people have seen is this incredible disparity in which those people who had cars and money got out, and those people who were impoverished died," Kennedy said. The question for Roberts, he said, is whether he stands for "a fairer, more just nation" or will he use "narrow, stingy interpretations of the law to frustrate progress."

I'm not sure which stingy interpretations he's talking of, but I guess the implication is that those who want to interpret the Constitution narrowly are trying to keep poor people down. I guess Roberts is somehow connected to the conditions at the Superdome.

But don't expect Roberts to be tripped up in the grilling he'll undergo this week. In an article in yesterday's paper, the Washington Post looked at the elite group of lawyers who are appellate lawyers appearing before the Supreme Court. It's a very interesting look at the skills involved in being a Supreme Court specialist.

But if his advocacy career offers few clues about what Roberts thinks, it does help illuminate how he thinks. The top Supreme Court advocates do not rely on grand theories; they delve into the minutiae of facts and law on a case-by-case basis. They analyze cases from every angle and know every weakness in their own arguments. They persuade with painstaking research and rigorous logic, not Perry Mason-style theatrics. They don't have to mingle much with the real world, but they do have to express complex ideas in clear terms. They are buttoned-down institutionalists; none of them wear bolo ties in court.

"It's a very intellectual practice, a lot like being a judge," says Richard J. Lazarus, a former Roberts roommate who runs Georgetown University's Supreme Court Institute. "You can't be dogmatic. You've got to be able to see every side, and that's what made John so terrific."

This experience has given him so much practice and he's been putting in further practice for this week's hearings.

Roberts was compulsive in his preparations. He ran three moot courts for each case, and spent countless hours -- not all of them billable -- fine-tuning his arguments. He boiled down his arguments to a few main points, then committed them to index cards and memorized them, then shuffled the cards to practice delivering them in different orders with different segues. He often felt ill before entering the high court, but at the lectern he was unflappable and meticulous, answering questions with the calm demeanor of an adviser without a rooting interest.

"When I'm at the podium, everyone knows I'm an advocate," says Lawrence S. Robbins, who worked with Roberts in the solicitor general's office and is now a court specialist at his own firm. "But John doesn't come across as a salesman, not for a minute. Don't get me wrong: He is a salesman. But it just sounds like he's telling the truth and you're crazy if you disagree."

Those who know Roberts say the Senate Judiciary Committee can expect a similar performance when he testifies on his own behalf. He will seem to be mulling his responses, but he will have anticipated just about every question and will have prepared every answer in advance. Nothing will sway him from his script.

Of course, nothing will sway Edward Kennedy from his script either. But I suspect that John Roberts will be more than a match for him. That's what I'm looking forward to seeing is how he handles such questions without saying more than he need say to follow the Ginsburg pattern.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:42 AM 0 comments

Comments: Post a Comment

The truth about Avesil

Cheap Hosting

Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney

Dallas Bankruptcy Attorney

Wikio

Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights

Online Bachelors Degree

Monday, September 12, 2005

		Betsy's Page

HOME Betsy neither necessarily uses, nor endorses, the products advertised on this site. The truth about Avesil Cheap Hosting Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney Dallas Bankruptcy Attorney Wikio Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights Online Bachelors Degree Comments from an AP history and government teacher in Raleigh, NC. e-mail betsynewmark AT gmail.com Commissions earned from selling items through Amazon will go towards buying materials for my classes. Thank you. Site Feed		Monday, September 12, 2005 Edward Kennedy has found a hook to tie Katrina to his grilling of Judge Roberts. "Americans will have the opportunity for the first time to hear Judge Roberts's views on the major issues," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), the committee's most senior member, said in an interview. Katrina's devastation underscores the hearing's importance, he said. "What the American people have seen is this incredible disparity in which those people who had cars and money got out, and those people who were impoverished died," Kennedy said. The question for Roberts, he said, is whether he stands for "a fairer, more just nation" or will he use "narrow, stingy interpretations of the law to frustrate progress." I'm not sure which stingy interpretations he's talking of, but I guess the implication is that those who want to interpret the Constitution narrowly are trying to keep poor people down. I guess Roberts is somehow connected to the conditions at the Superdome. But don't expect Roberts to be tripped up in the grilling he'll undergo this week. In an article in yesterday's paper, the Washington Post looked at the elite group of lawyers who are appellate lawyers appearing before the Supreme Court. It's a very interesting look at the skills involved in being a Supreme Court specialist. But if his advocacy career offers few clues about what Roberts thinks, it does help illuminate how he thinks. The top Supreme Court advocates do not rely on grand theories; they delve into the minutiae of facts and law on a case-by-case basis. They analyze cases from every angle and know every weakness in their own arguments. They persuade with painstaking research and rigorous logic, not Perry Mason-style theatrics. They don't have to mingle much with the real world, but they do have to express complex ideas in clear terms. They are buttoned-down institutionalists; none of them wear bolo ties in court. "It's a very intellectual practice, a lot like being a judge," says Richard J. Lazarus, a former Roberts roommate who runs Georgetown University's Supreme Court Institute. "You can't be dogmatic. You've got to be able to see every side, and that's what made John so terrific." This experience has given him so much practice and he's been putting in further practice for this week's hearings. Roberts was compulsive in his preparations. He ran three moot courts for each case, and spent countless hours -- not all of them billable -- fine-tuning his arguments. He boiled down his arguments to a few main points, then committed them to index cards and memorized them, then shuffled the cards to practice delivering them in different orders with different segues. He often felt ill before entering the high court, but at the lectern he was unflappable and meticulous, answering questions with the calm demeanor of an adviser without a rooting interest. "When I'm at the podium, everyone knows I'm an advocate," says Lawrence S. Robbins, who worked with Roberts in the solicitor general's office and is now a court specialist at his own firm. "But John doesn't come across as a salesman, not for a minute. Don't get me wrong: He is a salesman. But it just sounds like he's telling the truth and you're crazy if you disagree." Those who know Roberts say the Senate Judiciary Committee can expect a similar performance when he testifies on his own behalf. He will seem to be mulling his responses, but he will have anticipated just about every question and will have prepared every answer in advance. Nothing will sway him from his script. Of course, nothing will sway Edward Kennedy from his script either. But I suspect that John Roberts will be more than a match for him. That's what I'm looking forward to seeing is how he handles such questions without saying more than he need say to follow the Ginsburg pattern. posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:42 AM 0 comments Comments: Edward Kennedy has found a hook to tie Katrina to his grilling of Judge Roberts. "Americans will have the opportunity for the first time to hear Judge Roberts's views on the major issues," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), the committee's most senior member, said in an interview. Katrina's devastation underscores the hearing's importance, he said. "What the American people have seen is this incredible disparity in which those people who had cars and money got out, and those people who were impoverished died," Kennedy said. The question for Roberts, he said, is whether he stands for "a fairer, more just nation" or will he use "narrow, stingy interpretations of the law to frustrate progress." I'm not sure which stingy interpretations he's talking of, but I guess the implication is that those who want to interpret the Constitution narrowly are trying to keep poor people down. I guess Roberts is somehow connected to the conditions at the Superdome. But don't expect Roberts to be tripped up in the grilling he'll undergo this week. In an article in yesterday's paper, the Washington Post looked at the elite group of lawyers who are appellate lawyers appearing before the Supreme Court. It's a very interesting look at the skills involved in being a Supreme Court specialist. But if his advocacy career offers few clues about what Roberts thinks, it does help illuminate how he thinks. The top Supreme Court advocates do not rely on grand theories; they delve into the minutiae of facts and law on a case-by-case basis. They analyze cases from every angle and know every weakness in their own arguments. They persuade with painstaking research and rigorous logic, not Perry Mason-style theatrics. They don't have to mingle much with the real world, but they do have to express complex ideas in clear terms. They are buttoned-down institutionalists; none of them wear bolo ties in court. "It's a very intellectual practice, a lot like being a judge," says Richard J. Lazarus, a former Roberts roommate who runs Georgetown University's Supreme Court Institute. "You can't be dogmatic. You've got to be able to see every side, and that's what made John so terrific." This experience has given him so much practice and he's been putting in further practice for this week's hearings. Roberts was compulsive in his preparations. He ran three moot courts for each case, and spent countless hours -- not all of them billable -- fine-tuning his arguments. He boiled down his arguments to a few main points, then committed them to index cards and memorized them, then shuffled the cards to practice delivering them in different orders with different segues. He often felt ill before entering the high court, but at the lectern he was unflappable and meticulous, answering questions with the calm demeanor of an adviser without a rooting interest. "When I'm at the podium, everyone knows I'm an advocate," says Lawrence S. Robbins, who worked with Roberts in the solicitor general's office and is now a court specialist at his own firm. "But John doesn't come across as a salesman, not for a minute. Don't get me wrong: He is a salesman. But it just sounds like he's telling the truth and you're crazy if you disagree." Those who know Roberts say the Senate Judiciary Committee can expect a similar performance when he testifies on his own behalf. He will seem to be mulling his responses, but he will have anticipated just about every question and will have prepared every answer in advance. Nothing will sway him from his script. Of course, nothing will sway Edward Kennedy from his script either. But I suspect that John Roberts will be more than a match for him. That's what I'm looking forward to seeing is how he handles such questions without saying more than he need say to follow the Ginsburg pattern. posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:42 AM 0 comments Comments: Post a Comment