And I _do_ hear what lawyers say about my judge: they respect her because she's fair, fast, accurate, and smart; similarly with my bosses on the 7th Cir., the late Walter Cummings, who was revered by all, and Ilana Rovner, who is respected, except by disappointed conservatives (she's a super-liberal Reagan-Bush appointee). I've heard the joke about low IQ judges, and it may or may not be true of some state court judges, I wouldn't know. I work in a federal court. Not all federal judges are smart, but the ones I have worked for in some capacity or other have ranged from bright to brilliant, and the overall average is pretty high here in the N.D. Ill. and the 7th Cir.
--jks
>
>
> >>> jkschw at hotmail.com 05/17/01 04:32PM >>>
>Jesus, Charles, the first thing you learn in this job is that you can
>_never_ trust the parties' briefs on the law _or_ the facts. They lie. They
>miss things. They misrepresent.
>
>((((((((
>
>CB: Funny thing is that litigators say about the same things about judges
>and their clerks. "What a dumb decision . Did he go to law school ? He must
>have been paid off !"
>
>You know the old saying from lawschool. The A students become professors,
>the B students become lawyers, and the C students become judges.
>
>The next thing you will learn is it is the lawyers , not the judges, who
>make the law.
>
>((((((
>
>
> We're sending a well-litigated case run by
>good lawyers on both sides (a rare experience) to the jury today, and it's
>amazing how much they missed.
>
>((((((((
>
>CB: I can imagine what they are saying about you.
>
>
>((((((((
>
>
>
> The less able lawyers do proportionately
>worse. Basically I have to do _everything_ myself from scratch. And it's
>Rule 11 you're thinking of. The only reason we don't use it more than we do
>is that if we used it for all the half-assed, dishonest arguments that
>deserved it, we'd sanction almost everyone almost all the time. In any
>case,
>if you do the job right, you find that there is not always a case to be
>made
>of the civil plaintiff or criminal defendant. --jks
>
>
>(((((((((
>
>CB: How long have you been doing this ? You'll learn. You have more power,
>not superior understanding of the law. In other words, the only reason you
>are more "right" on the law is that what the judge says is the law is the
>law. You know the joke about the umpires.
>
>
>
>
> >From: "Charles Brown" <CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us>
> >Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> >To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
> >Subject: Re: judicial tyranny
> >Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 16:02:08 -0400
> >
> >All you have to do is adopt the arguments made by plaintiffs' attorneys
>in
> >their briefs. If you don't have briefs, tell the judge to ask for briefs
>on
> >the issues. Those arguments will be very colorable legally,and they won't
> >contain an iota of what in common language is considered "political".
>Very
> >few complaints filed by competent attorneys are frivilous or rejectable
> >under ,is it Rule 23.
> >
> >CB
> >
>
>
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com