LAW PUNDIT Tuesday, November 04, 2003 11/04/2003 01:18:00 AM [Home]
The US Supreme Court - For God's Sake - No Questions
The US Supreme Court - For God's Sake - No Questions
In a very interesting article by Charles Lane in the Washington Post online entitled Questions From the Bench Seen as Clues to Final Outcomes (washingtonpost.com), Lane discusses a forthcoming article by Sarah R. Levien, 25, a third-year student at Georgetown University Law Center, who claims to have discovered a system for predicting the Justice's decisions in a given case.
THE QUESTIONS HAVE IT IN THE SUPREME COURT
The key, as Levien has discovered by sitting in on US Supreme Court oral arguments,
is to observe the judges in their questioning of lawyers during those oral arguments.
She found that:
1. Few questions to one party to a case means they are going to win.
2. Many questions to one party to a case means they are going to lose.
3. Friendly questions to one party to a case means they are going to win.
4. Hostile questions to one party to a case means they are going to lose.
In other words, questions during oral argument seemingly are not made by the Justices in order to clarify difficult issues of law in the minds of the judges at the time of oral argument, but rather to put the parties in their proper places, as winners OR losers. In other words, it would appear that the judges already have their minds made up and their decisions made - prior to oral argument. So what is the point of oral argument? Is this not a colossal waste of time? Or is it done to show the authority of the court - as in the phrase "WE ask the questions around here" - the personal touch??
WHAT DO QUESTIONS MEAN OUTSIDE THE SUPREME COURT
Actually, I was not surprised by Levien's findings in the least. But listen, "I have a question...."
What does this mean about the asking of questions in our society as a whole?
QUESTIONS IN PRESS CONFERENCES
Watch your next political press conference and you will see the same above phenomenon at work. The news media in a press conference do NOT ask questions to clarify difficult issues in their mind - or in the minds of their public - as based upon the answers given to them by the person to whom the questions are directed.
Rather, questions are used as a weapon of either verbal attack or verbal assistance. In fact, we have observed long ago that you can usually quite easily tell the partisan affiliation of reporters by the manner and substance of their questions. The reporters usually have an AGENDA they are pushing. They are NOT merely interested in NEW FACTS or BETTER ANSWERS.
In any case, the next time you are faced with questions, ponder the circumstances.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 11/04/2003 01:18:00 AM
The US Supreme Court - For God's Sake - No Questions
The US Supreme Court - For God's Sake - No Questions
In a very interesting article by Charles Lane in the Washington Post online entitled Questions From the Bench Seen as Clues to Final Outcomes (washingtonpost.com), Lane discusses a forthcoming article by Sarah R. Levien, 25, a third-year student at Georgetown University Law Center, who claims to have discovered a system for predicting the Justice's decisions in a given case.
THE QUESTIONS HAVE IT IN THE SUPREME COURT
The key, as Levien has discovered by sitting in on US Supreme Court oral arguments,
is to observe the judges in their questioning of lawyers during those oral arguments.
She found that:
1. Few questions to one party to a case means they are going to win.
2. Many questions to one party to a case means they are going to lose.
3. Friendly questions to one party to a case means they are going to win.
4. Hostile questions to one party to a case means they are going to lose.
In other words, questions during oral argument seemingly are not made by the Justices in order to clarify difficult issues of law in the minds of the judges at the time of oral argument, but rather to put the parties in their proper places, as winners OR losers. In other words, it would appear that the judges already have their minds made up and their decisions made - prior to oral argument. So what is the point of oral argument? Is this not a colossal waste of time? Or is it done to show the authority of the court - as in the phrase "WE ask the questions around here" - the personal touch??
WHAT DO QUESTIONS MEAN OUTSIDE THE SUPREME COURT
Actually, I was not surprised by Levien's findings in the least. But listen, "I have a question...."
What does this mean about the asking of questions in our society as a whole?
QUESTIONS IN PRESS CONFERENCES
Watch your next political press conference and you will see the same above phenomenon at work. The news media in a press conference do NOT ask questions to clarify difficult issues in their mind - or in the minds of their public - as based upon the answers given to them by the person to whom the questions are directed.
Rather, questions are used as a weapon of either verbal attack or verbal assistance. In fact, we have observed long ago that you can usually quite easily tell the partisan affiliation of reporters by the manner and substance of their questions. The reporters usually have an AGENDA they are pushing. They are NOT merely interested in NEW FACTS or BETTER ANSWERS.
In any case, the next time you are faced with questions, ponder the circumstances.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 11/04/2003 01:18:00 AM
......Creative Commons License
