Appellate cases are usually won or lost on the briefs.

It all depends on the litigator's practice. And what good is a commercial litigator for a criminal case? Best part you don't even need to be admitted to be a Federal judge.

This right here is the problem. IMO, these are not "glittering credentials" and evince and complete absence of relevant experience to earn a spot on such a high post. There are far too many judges at every level who have never, ever lived in the real world. That is a problem. In her case, she graduated from law school and clerked. Then she barely practiced in DC, which is far removed from "reality," then went into academia.

Where is the real world experience? Where is her court room experience? Where is her time on a lower bench dealing with the "common" legal issues pertinent to many Americans.

How on earth is she to judge a criminal case with no criminal law experience? None. How can she understand labor/employment issues with no experience in the labor market or dealing with employers or employees? How can she take a position and defend it when she has spent 15 year - the vast majority of her professional career - writing law school exams where every argument must be made and no position taken?

I don't like it for that reason and would not support her without even getting to her religious beliefs.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

I'm not disagreeing with you.

Isn't Circuit court more "academic" than district?

Not sure I am certain I understand what you mean. Her issue is she has spent the majority of her career at Notre Dame law school, rather than in the real world.

Circuit Court is state court. District Court is federal court. So, you are talking state offenses vs. federal offenses. There are so may laws that have parallel state and federal versions, you can see just about anything.

Arguably, if you are looking at a spot on the 7th Cir Court of Appeals, District Court would be more applicable b/c you are dealing with federal law and the 7th Cir hears federal law cases. I think that is what you are asking.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Circuit is the appellate court i.e. the 7th circuit which you are a member of I'm guessing.

Appellate law is more looking at precedent and legal theory since facts have already been determined by the district i.e. more research where practical courtroom experience is less applicable

Ok, I see what you mean. You mean "Circuit" as in "7th Circuit." Normally, "circuit court" refers to state court whereas "district court" refers to federal court.

It really depends. To a certain extent - yes, because a lot of trial court (i.e, district court and circuit court) involves jury trials. In a jury trial, there is no opinion. But, a lot of cases are to a judge only. In a judge only case, the judge issues the decision and has to provide a legal opinion citing legal theories supporting his position. So, trial court judges do this as well.

Now, in the appellate court, you never conduct trials. It is just oral argument. Then you issue a legal opinion. So, you are correct there. HOWEVER, the appellate judges are reviewing decisions by trial courts. Therefore, having experience in a trial court - either as a judge or at least a litigator - is quite helpful.

We have a serious problem when appellate judges never spend time in the real world b/c they do not understand the impact of their decisions or how the law is actually applied to real situations.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Fair enough. I just didn't like the hypocrisy of her hearing. Your arguments are actually legitimate

I completely agree. I just find her qualifications questionable for actual legitimate reasons, as opposed to those articulated by Team Donkey.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

I think we're basically on the same page here.

In terms of credentials, I think a supreme court clerkship is considered a plum credential just about everywhere, even though it's certainly not sufficient in itself to qualify someone to sit on the federal bench. There's a reason firms are willing to pay six figure bonuses for supreme court clerks, and it's not just the prestige factor, there's real experience and insight that comes out of that role.

Some criminal experience certainly be an advantage, I'm not sure if I would consider it an absolute must but sure would be nice to see you. Things like employment law, no offense but as you've noted in many threads before, judges are seeing such a huge variety of cases that they're bound to be areas that they just don't have exposure to.

To the extent I could identify a "best" law school exam it would be ones that were a combination of both issues spotter questions where he just had to hit as many points as you could, as well as take a position and defend it questions. One of my biggest beefs with new lawyers coming out of law school is that they can't argue their way out of a paper bag.

While not ultimately disqualifying in my mind, I think it's fair to have questioned her on her religious beliefs given that she has written papers suggesting that a judges religious belief should in some cases cause the judge to recuse himself from cases that would conflict with his faith. If she has publicly taken a position that Catholic faith might interfere with application of the law, I think it's legit to examine her on whether she still holds that position

Your first sentence is mind numbing. That is EXACTLY what you want a judge to do

Sorry your mind is numbed. Also, while that may be the right result once a judge is seated, another right result is lot to seat the judge in the first place if she thinks her faith will interfere with her ability to apply the law.