Background
Now comes a student of the law, religion, politics, and culture to try to advance the ball in the game of understanding and offer a forum for collective engagement. This is not postmodernism, Smokey, and there are rules here, but if we focus on content, we just might get somewhere.
Advertisement
Comments are closed.
Topic Browser
Latest Comments
Blogroll
- A Kaleidoscoped Life
- ALDLAND
- Andy Mention
- Brand Catharsis
- Bridging the Gap
- Ecotone
- Free Lunches
- Gnartoons
- GRZL*
- House of Bland and Blog
- House Rules
- Jackalope Brewing
- Jazz Backstory
- Law School Transparency
- Legal Theory Blog
- Mass Tort Litigation Blog
- Pastured Poetry
- Run for the Fallen
- Rustic Eats & Uniques
- SCOG Blog
- SCOTUSblog
- Sean Tice
- Sixth Circuit Appellate Blog
- Sixth Circuit Immigration Decisions
- Tasty Gnarl
- The Alexander Hamilton Institute
- The Intercept
- The Volokh Conspiracy
- TODDJHARTLEY
- TSITS
- Vanderbilt Sports Line
TweeterCenter
- Gallup on American political party identification: "Since 2009, independent identification has grown and reached le… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 1 day ago
- RT @ReutersLegal Senator Lindsey Graham, the new top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, called for a shi… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 2 days ago
- Turns out the person trying to convince other people to use his robot lawyer to keep them out of trouble wasn't con… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 3 days ago
- Ukrainian government publicly and apparently extrajudicially executes a man for treason then buries him days later… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 3 days ago
- ##war RT @cammcwhirter #WhiteHouse plans to deliver 31 M1 Abrams #tanks to #Ukraine, in a coordinated move in which… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 3 days ago
SoundCheck
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
From the Web
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
TheVault
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
Since it’s off the main page, I’ll include here the text of the first post, which remains relevant:
“An attorney should always put a statement of the questions presented at the very beginning of any brief unless the rules forbid it.”
J.H. Huebert, How to Persuade Judges in the Real World, 35 Ohio N.U.L. Rev. 829, 830 (2009) (citing Antonin Scalia & Brian A. Garner, Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges, 83 (2008)). Making Your Case is an excellent book for legal writers, particularly appellate advocates, but Hubert’s title is more applicable here. Setting aside the notion of persuasion, the judicial posture is a useful one for approaching the world.
On the national level of the American governmental apparatus, judges usually are considered passive entities. A court cannot reach out and take or create a case that is not properly before it, nor can it concoct a set of hypothetical facts and issue a decision based on those facts. Most of the time, courts cannot even rule on arguments or contentions the parties do not raise. This detached position encourages patience and allows one to receive an orderly presentation of considerations before making a decision. And judges must make some kind of decision. Judges are passive in posture, though not in nature. At the very least, they must issue a judgment– a verdict, decision, or ruling. By convention or rule, they need to be prepared to defend their decisions verbally or in writing. This requirement of eventual and substantial action reinforces and enhances the passive phase and its attendant values. Knowledge that one must later decide focuses the passive mind and encourages patience to allow for a full understanding of the matters at hand. There is mutually reinforcing energy between listening and deciding such that nothing is mere talk, and chatter has little purpose. As usual, time is a foundational consideration: listen, then decide, then defend, and then listen again.
Resource limitations are a part of our condition. When we choose to utilize our limited resources, we want to do so effectively. This applies to mental resources as much as it does to fuel and finances. Regardless of a resource’s renewability, other limitations will constrain its expenditure or utilization. Efficacy and efficiency are the best responses to this fact of limitation, here represented by the phrase “in the real world.” Many scholars are feeding their families today because of their ability to operate (in varying degrees) detached from the real world. Ideas are important. Theory is important. That’s the point of what you are reading and will read here. The seemingly unavoidable limitations on resources demand that we root ourselves in reality, while allowing ourselves to discuss, critique, and reevaluate that reality. This is a chance to find out what happens when keeping it real goes right.
What about the questions presented? Wasn’t that where this was supposed to begin? It was, and it is. Justice Scalia and Brian Garner emphasize the primacy of questions presented because those questions shape everything that follows. I’m not exactly sure what will follow, but I have some ideas and I know you do too. It’s time to start asking questions that matter.
https://questionspresented.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/statement-of-the-case/