Legal Writhing

My legal writing brief is due tomorrow, so I haven't been doing much more than that in the last couple of days. The problem I am up against now is that the school has placed an unrealistic page limit on our brief. I was looking through some Division II criminal briefs as examples and most of the briefs are over 30 pages and only cover two issues. We are expected to cover three issues and do it all in 25 pages. I know it is because the professors do not want to read more than that, but it is an unrealistic expectation. I realize that there is something to be learned by forcing conciseness and courts do not like excessive wordiness, but I definatly cannot get all my arguments covered in 25 pages. I have already cut two whole pages of text and have a page and one-half to go.

I'll admit it; I suffer from a specific writer's malady that makes cutting down tough. My ego is wrapped up with my writing, so when I cut out whole sentences, I feel like I am cutting something important out simply because I wrote it.

I should take some lessons from our new Chief Justice, John Roberts. In his first dissent for the court in Massachusetts v. EPA, he wrapped up his views in 14 pages. Granted, justices have more leeway in dissenting opinions because they do not have to worry about being binding. It is simply a place for them to say how the rest of the judges got it wrong, and he dismissed the case based on standing. Regardless of the merits of his global warming opinion, his writing style is wonderful. He is very concise and easy to read, especially compared to Steven's majority opinion. The other thing that worries me about Steven's opinion is the creation of a new basis for standing, a "special solicitude" for Massachusetts. Robert's called this "an implicit concession that petitioners cannot establish standing on traditional terms" Id at 44. The majority creates a new standing doctrine without citing any precedence. Maybe this is revenge by the liberal justices for the court choosing Bush as president in 2000, or as one blogger said, this case should be renamed Bush v. Gore's Movie.

Getting to know your Justices, and yourself.

This semester has felt very different from all of last year. There was something so intense about the One-L year, as if all of life was wrapped up in law school. I am still studying a lot, but last year at this time I do not remember ever forgetting that I was at law school. I worked last Friday; I went out to dinner tonight; I watched a movie last night, and during all of those activities, I kind of felt like I was just living like a normal human being. Sure, I have not had a weekend where I did not study for at least 4-5 hours per day, but I am not behaving all that different than I would if I was simply working. I guess this means I am “thinking like a lawyer” – working on weekends – and that I have learned to find some balance in my life.

As to the law and my life, I learned recently that a former Supreme Court Justice came from my hometown and went to college at my alma mater, the University of Colorado: Justice Byron White. That is about where our similarities end. He was a professional football player with the nickname of “the whizzer,” and he tended to vote with the more conservative wing of the court–he joined Rehnquist in dissenting in Roe v. Wade. As a Kennedy appointee, he is further proof that you never quite know what you are going to get with a justice. O’Conner, who wrote the Casey opinion essentially upholding Roe was appointed by Reagan, so for people who are freaking out about the two new appointees to the court, history tells us to just wait and see; often justices do not act on the bench as we think they might. Still, in my inquiry into the personalities of the Supreme Court, I was excited to see that Fort Fun had produced a SCOTUS justice (Supreme Court of the United States). After learning that the rumor of Kip Winger growing up in Fort Collins was untrue, he grew up in Denver, I did not think there were any famous people from our little outpost on the boundary between the mid-west and the west. Around Seattle, everyone talks of their golden judicial child, Justice William O. Douglas– a decidedly more liberal justice.

Heeding my own words, supra, I do not want to simply reduce any justice to a single categorical description of liberal or conservative. One thing I have learned this year is that most Constitutional law questions are more complicated than a simple either/or category. By the time a conflict has moved its way through the lower courts, it has been stripped of much of the detritus of the individual facts, but unhinged from those facts, what remains is often a very difficult to answer question, such as trying to figure out what is meant my “liberty” in the 14^th Amendment’s “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” With such a daunting task, it is good that the court has justices with different perspectives and a good sense of humor.

Getting to Know your Justices

Check out this video of a discussion with Justice Breyer and Justice Scalia. These two justices represent the two major opposing perspectives on constitutional interpretation. Who seems to make more sense? The discussion is particularly void of any specific factual scenarios, so you get constitutional interpretation without the baggage of an individual case. What is interesting is not only the places where they disagree but also the beliefs and perspectives they share. Also, thanks to my faithful reader J. for pointing out some legal humor in a recent Supreme Court Opinion, Lopes v. Gonzolaz, where Justice Souter quotes Alice in Wonderland:

Reading §924(c) the Government’s way, then, would often turn simple possession into trafficking, just what the English language tells us not to expect, and that result makes us very wary of the Government’s position. Cf. Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U. S. 1, 11 (2004) (“[W]e cannot forget that we ultimately are determining the meaning of the term ‘crime of violence’”). Which is not to deny that the Government might still be right; Humpty Dumpty used a word to mean “‘just what [he chose] it to mean— neither more nor less,’”5 and legislatures, too, are free to be unorthodox. Congress can define an aggravated felony of illicit trafficking in an unexpected way. But Congress would need to tell us so, and there are good reasons to think it was doing no such thing here.6

You can see here how Souter is employing his own method of interpretation to determine what the statute is talking about. I wonder if I can quote Alice in Wonderland in my finals? Probably not. Supreme Court Justices get a bit more leeway.

Snow Day and Legal Humor

We had a snow day yesterday! It is true that school was cancelled, but for a Colorado kid, it hardly felt like a snow day. In my neighborhood, we had less than an inch of snow, but in the north-west, it is not the snow that shuts the city down but the sheet of ice that covers everything. The most dangerous part of my travel outside the apartment yesterday was getting down the stairs in front of my apartment which were also covered in ice. Unlike childhood snow days, I spent most of the days studying. I did take a break to sneak downtown for lunch. The city really was shut down; I have never had such an easy time finding a parking spot. I could have had my pick. So, even without the snowmen, having a snow day was pretty nice.

School is back in session today, and since we are heading toward finals, I will not have many breaks for the next three weeks. You may see more posts like my previous one which consists of video clips I have been viewing as distractions from studying. It is important to keep perspective on this whole process.

If you have been reading for a while, you will know that I have had several posts on the topic of legal humor. My general thoughts on this topic have evolved. I no longer think, as I did during my one-L year, that the law does not have a sense of humor. While it is not necessarily easy or appropriate to compare the law to literature or drama, this does not mean humor is absent. Sure, the law is clearly different. Where literature has a metaphorical affect on human behavior, the law has actual effect. If you are sued and you are found liable at court, you will have to pay. Nothing in literature has this kind of power. However, you will only be paying if you do not win, and because one of the most important aspects of handling a case is making good arguments, humor may very well have a place in your toolbox of argumentative tactics. The use of humorous rhetoric is not just the province of bold and creative trial attorneys; there are even examples in the writings of Supreme Court Justices. No matter how we feel about Justice Scalia's style of constitutional interpretation, he is without a doubt the most colorful justice on the court, and his opinions are often the most entertaining to read. I was reading his dissenting opinion in the law school affirmative action case of Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) when I came across a fine example of his sarcastic humor. The Majority upheld the University of Michigan's use of race as a factor in creating a "critical mass" of diversity in their law school admission decisions. Scalia responded, including this passage:

. . .If it is appropriate for the University of Michigan Law School to use racial discrimination for the purpose of putting together a "critical mass" that will convey generic lessons in socialization and good citizenship, surely it is no less appropriate - indeed, particularly appropriate - for the civil service systems of the State of Michigan to do so. . . . And surely private employers cannot be criticized - indeed, should be praised - if they also "teach" good citizenship to their adult employees through a patriotic, all-American system of racial discrimination in hiring. The non-minority individuals who are deprived of a legal education, a civil service job, or any job at all by reason of their skin color will surely understand"

This use of humor is cutting and its purpose is not necessarily to make you laugh. He uses humor to make his argument, but by using this type of rhetorical tool, he manages to make his argument both more accessable and more enjoyable to read. If you ust ask about any law student, they will most likely tell you that reading an opinion from the Consevertive Scalia is considerably more entertaining and engaging that an opinion by, for example, the former liberal justice William Brennen. Unfortunatly for Brennen, even if you think you agree with him, you may not be entirely sure because you have no idea what he is talking about in his opinions. Humor clearly has a place in the law, and I wish more justices and lawyers infused their rhetoric with it.

With the appointment of Harriet Meyer to supreme court, we are again unsure as to what we are going to get. With little writing by her and little known, we have to infer from the information we have. She is supported by conservative groups and she once said that the president one of the most brilliant men she ever met. Could she really have meant that. Either she is as much of an idiot as he is or she is a total kiss-ass, croney, sheep who may be a woman but she has attatched herself to an ideological wave and she is just dragged along with it.
There is little left to do but to keep up with this story and to continue with my studies. After the Roberts nomination process, I have learned that at this point there is little than anyone will do to deny the president from nominating whoever he wants (people don't want to be seen by their constituants as creating resistance in Washington, as being an outsider. If there is any hope of effecting change in the world according to views that I hold as valuable, it must start with my own studies of the system so that I will be best able to move through and understand the system. The depth of my own understanding of the law will be my weapon and my map as we move into a new era of the court, the Roberts court. With this, I am off to civil procedure.

Supreme Court Justices

What an interesting time to be in law school. In the first two weeks, there are two openings on the bench of the supreme court. This is an issue that I feel wholly unqualified to discuss compared to the many other materials available, but how does this seem to effect me and what is the perspective of the beginning law student?

The outcome of these appointments are likely to set the tone of the courts for much of the duration of my career. Are the courts going to change positions on many of the key issues that are highly disputed cultural issues like abortion, prayer in schools, terrorism? How do I maintain my own beliefs while at the same time respect the system of law to which I will become a laborer. How am I connected to John Roberts now? Are we colleges in a sense, but does not the justice system encompass all citizens as an extending of our interrelated society bonds?

thoughts at the end of a long day of studying!