Thursday, March 02, 2006

Justice Ginsburg Dozes Off During Oral Argument

It seems that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dozed off during oral arguments yesterday.

I would love to comment on this. I really would. If you happen to run into me, ask me what I think. But, as I have a Supreme Court practice, there is not a snowball's chance that I'm going to put anything that comes to mind in writing.

Discretion is truly the better part of valor.

UPDATE: Wow! Gotta be careful about this. Somebody just asked me to send her the link to this thread. Here it is: http://skepticalobservor.blogspot.com/2006/03/justice-ginsburg-dozes -off-during-oral.html

31 comments:

Willis said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
James Young said...

And willis: act like a child, and get treated like one. DELETED!

Willis said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lucy Jones said...

Willis,

You really are going out on the limb of disgusting behavior. Everyone is allowed to have their opinion. Even you! Please stop...

Will Vehrs said...

I can't help but wonder about the coverage had it been Justice Thomas dozing off ....

Maybe the court just needs to grant cert to more exciting cases ....

Hirons said...

Jim,

Is this typical behavior for a Supreme? or Ginsberg? From the sketch it looks like she's rather ill - perhaps a touch of the flu.

I sure wish they'd allow cameras in the Sup.Court. so we could get an accurate picture of what goes on in there.

NOVA Scout said...

James: I wouldn't worry too much about jeopardizing your "Supreme Court Practice." I don't have a "Supreme Court Practice" but occasionally something I work on gets up there for one reason or another so I keep a weather eye on the place. Once every few years something pops up. I have never seen you there and am aware of only one amicus brief on which your name appears in the last 15 years. and that's not as lead counsel. Maybe there's some breakdown in Lexis. Maybe you're before the Court frequently . But I don't think so. So go ahead - tell us what you thing about Justice Ginsberg. It won't hurt your practice. I'll tell you what I think: I'm worried that she is not well.

James Young said...

NoVA Scout, you are cordially invited the infernal reaches. You hide in pseudonymity, make elaborate claims about yourself that cannot be verified, and do a half-a**ed search on Lexis, and declare it (with minimal qualification) authoritative about me with a typically belittling tone.

Presumably the case to which you refer from your partial search is the Boston Harbor case, on which I was co-counsel with a more experienced and accomplished colleague. Oh, and in which I was primary author of the brief, but was not yet qualified for admission to the Supreme Court bar (one must practice for three years, and the brief was due a few months before I became qualified). Building and Const. Trades Council of Metropolitan Dist. v. Associated Builders and Contractors of Massachusetts/Rhode Island, Inc., 507 U.S. 218, 113 S.Ct. 1190, 122 L.Ed.2d 565 (1993). It was actually argued on the day I was sworn in.

Of course, had you done a complete search (one which Lexis would not reveal), you might have learned that I've filed a number of cert. petitions (all save one, denied), successfully resisted another, which does qualify as a Supreme Court practice (even though Prescott was won, I didn't get the opportunity to argue; victory was won without any argument). What may only be a partial list follows:

Weaver v. University of Cincinnati, 970 F.2d 1523 (6th Cir. 1992), cert. denied sub nom. Weaver v. Steger, 507 U.S. 917, 113 S.Ct. 1274 (Mem), 122 L.Ed.2d 668 (1993);

Reese v. City of Columbus, 71 F.3d 619 (6th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 964, 117 S.Ct. 386 (Mem), 136 L.Ed.2d 303 (1996);

Knight v. Kenai Peninsula Borough School District, 131 F.3d 807 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. denied sub nom. Anchorage Education Assocation v. Patterson, 524 U.S. 904, 118 S.Ct. 2060 (Mem), 141 L.Ed.2d 138 (1998) (defending against cert. petition);

Cecil v. NLRB, 194 F.3d 1311 (6th Cir. 1999), 529 U.S. 1066, 120 S.Ct. 1671 (Mem), 146 L.Ed.2d 481 (2000);

Prescott v. County of El Dorado, 177 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 1999), cert. granted, vacated, and remanded 528 U.S. 1111, 120 S.Ct. 929, 145 L.Ed.2d 807 (2000), remanded, 204 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2000), further proceedings, 298 F.3d 844 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied 537 U.S. 1188, 123 S.Ct. 1251, 154 L.Ed.2d 1019 (2003); and

Cummings v. Connell, 316 F.3d 886 (9th Cir.), cert. denied 539 U.S. 927, 123 S.Ct. 2577, 156 L.Ed.2d 604 (2003).

Not Ben said...

Yawn. Neither Lexis nor WestLaw turns up your name in those cases.

I'm gonna go find some cases I want to claim I worked on too. Works for Jimbo, after all...

James Young said...

Keep it up, not ben. A little flash: cert. denied (and GVRs) don't list counsel at all. Sooooo, like NoVA Scout, you know not from whence you speak. I'd suggest that you check the cites on the appellate court cases (save for Cecil, since it's an unreported decision only on a table; you'll have to go back the NLRB case there), or check my Martindale-Hubbell (which confirms information) entry (http://www.martindale.com/xp/ Martindale/Lawyer_Locator/Search_ Lawyer_Locator/search_result.xml? PG=0&STYPE=N&FNAME=&LNAME=Young&FN =&CN=Springfield&STS=51&CRY=1&bc=1), but since you clearly don't care about the facts, why bother?

Not Ben said...

Yeah, I know it doesn't show up when cert. is denied, but you listed those cases as some evidence of your work on the SCOTUS level. Nothing verifiable shows up in a search.

You may be able to make the case for a Supreme Court practice as Black's or Ballentine's would define it, but certainly not to the point where Justice Ginsburg would know you from Adam.

Interesting work on the Orr case, though...

Will Vehrs said...

Mr. Young, I wasn't following this post until now, but I'm incredulous that you would take out after NOVA Scout, a consistent and erudite poster across the spectrum of the Virginia blogosphere.

Sometimes I think you are more interested in settling personal scores than in blogging about ideas and issues. That's a shame, the Willis thing excepted.

James Young said...

Well, Will, I have no respect for people who post anonymously, and precious little for those who post pseudonymously, especially when the latter makes elaborate claims to credentials which give him some authority (a claim which remains, of course, utterly unverifiable). Couple that with a careless attack my easily verifiable credentials (that is, the person cares to do so), and I find that worthy of criticism.

While he occasionally hits the mark, he seems to have fixated upon me, attacking me with an accusatory tone and upon my mental state. I find that to be utterly despicable. I'm surprised you would defend him. Particularly AFTER I give chapter-and-verse demonstrating his carelessness. Instead of being "incredulous" over taking out after NoVA Scout, perhaps you should consider that his belittling tone and false accusations are demonstrably false. A "personal score"? Hardly. How can setting the record straight be fairly viewed as "settling [a] personal score"?

I suppose I could have just deleted his comment. Would you view that as a more appropriate course?

James Young said...

I never claimed that it was to the point where Ginsburg "would know [me] from Adam," NB. Why are you trying to make my little bon mot something that it was not?

As for the Orr case, it certainly was an interesting case. I'll never forget Jim Gilmore's speech to the '94 GOP State Convention (the AG was amicus in the case). To listen, you would've thought that HE was representing the players.

Will Vehrs said...

No, deleting the comment wouldn't have been right and I'm glad you didn't.

I know your feelings on anonymous/psuedonomynous bloggers. Ironically, your post was effort to be like them.

I wasn't aware you had a long standing battle with NOVA Scout. All I know is that he has been a fair and insightful commenter everywhere I've ever posted.

I guess I shouldn't have "butted in."

James Young said...

Fair 'nuff, Will. I respect your work --- on many scores, not the least of which is the fact that when you lay it on the line, you put your name on it --- and I appreciate constructive criticism, when offered, and factual correction, when rendered without animosity. Yours was, and it was taken with those things in mind.

NoVA Scout does neither, while making elaborate claims of credentials no one can verify. When I speak about labor law, or union political spending, it is with the authority of one "in the arena," and attaching my name to it lends that credibility, just as yours does on state bureaucracy. People know (or can easily learn) of my affiliations, and judge those comments accordingly. NoVA Scout TELLS us he can speak with authority, but remains safely anonymous, so that no one is permitted to judge the authority (or lack thereof) that he brings to the table.

I was just fortunate enough, on this occasion, to be able to call him out on it, and on his less-than-thorough research. While it might please him greatly were I to do so, I'm not holding my breath for the apology that I'm owed.

Waldo Jaquith said...

That's really interesting, James -- I had no idea that you had that sort of experience.

James Young said...

Well, Waldo, I don't make a habit of bragging about it (which, I assume, my critics will accuse me of in light of the foregoing). However, given the smarmy tone of one of the responsive posts, I felt the need to set the record straight.

Even more interestingly, Chief Justice Roberts showed up in two of my cases, though we never interacted, or even met.

Walt Cleeland said...

What do you mean you don't make a habit of bragging about it? That's exactly what you were trying do. Your post made it seem like your commenting about the Supreme Court would put your "practice" in jeopardy, and a few folks waded through the BS and called you on it. So you started whining like a little girl with a skinned knee.

And what do you possibly know about discretion anyway?

Not Ben said...

There's no real "practice" in jeopardy, Walt. I do believe James when he says he had a role in those cases where certiorari was denied. He did work on those cases on the appellate level and as he was admitted to the SCOTUS in 1992, I imagine he would keep working on those cases when they made it to a Supreme Court level.

That said, while it may meet a dictionary definition of "Supreme Court practice," it's pure folly for him to suggest that there is any practice at risk by his blogging. The intent is clear: to suggest frequent work with the Supreme Court. Authoring the occasional portion of an appeal where cert is denied hardly qualifies.

The fact is that while James has a fairly impressive legal resume (by my standards, anyway), he has never argued before the Supreme Court nor been noted in their records on any cases. I should know, I checked:

http://img369.imageshack.us/my.php?image=jimbo3pi.jpg

James Young said...

Walter, one occasion upon provocation hardly constitutes a "habit."

As for Not Ben, your reliance upon Westlaw (the web addresss you reference) on these topics is misplaced, because Westlaw is not "their [the Supreme Court's] records." Furthermore, serving as "Counsel of Record" is hardly "the occasional portion of an appeal where cert is denied." While you are correct that I have never argued before the Court (never claimed to, either), though I did win one case where the Court granted cert., vacated the Ninth Circuit decision, and remanded the case.

Were you to go down to the Clerk's office --- and if you did, please let me know, so that I am aware that I have a stalker --- you would actually find out that I am "noted in their records on [the aforementioned] cases" (save for the Boston Harbor case) as "Counsel of Record." And in each of those cases, except for minor editing work, the product on file is mine.

Willis said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Not Ben said...

Willis: grow up, would you?

James: I'm not going to the clerk: I don't care, and frankly, I believe you. I just think calling your work a "Supreme Court practice" is like how a certain former VA Senator, more than ten years removed from office, still refers to herself as "Senator". Sure, you're technically entitled to do so, but c'mon...

Riley, Not O'Reilly said...

I'm admitted to the U.S. Supreme Court bar. Gets you good seats for the hot cases plus you have a secret side door you get to use. :)

NOVA Scout said...

James: Can't think of any time I've made "elaborate claims" to much of anything. I'm just an avid reader who has opinions and questions about things I see on the blogs. My point is simply that you should feel free to comment as you wish on Justice Ginsburg's nap. Your practice, however described, will not suffer. Generally speaking, however, among those who practice frequently before the court, what you do would not pass as a "Supreme Court Practice." Thousands of cert petitions get filed every year, many are pro se efforts by jailhouse lawyers. Only around 80 - 90 are granted. Writing cert petitions that get denied doesn't mean too much. A lot of non-lawyers do that. If you write one that gets granted, that's worth talking about. It's still not a "practice." The folks I know who have something taht would be commonly recognized as a "Supreme Court practice" get up before the Court as lead counsel at least once a term, some several times a term. (BTW, all of them are admitted in the jurisdiction where they have their office). I just thought it a bit grand to leave your readers thinking you might be one of them. No particular reason to consign me to hell. Just my two cents worth.

James Young said...

Didn't know that, Jim. Somebody who once mentioned the fact that I was admitted in an effort to impress a political enemy, and I had to break the news to him that three years good standing and $300 will get you admitted. ;-)

But the secret handshake is REALLY cool!

As for Walt's comment, see what I mean (ref: 12:38 post)?

And Not Ben, I do hope you recognize that my tongue was planted firmly in my cheek when I mentioned the Clerk's office. As for the "Senator," I wouldn't begrudge her that. I thinks it's pretty much de rigeur to do so. I was in Sacramento once, and saw a Bee profile on Judge Lawrence Karlton (he of the latest pledge case), in which one unnamed practitioner gave him grief for using the title "Chief Judge Emeritus." I had a case in front of Judge Karlton. Won part, lost part, and out of it came my one Supreme Court victory (Prescott). I found him to be a pretty good, mostly thoughtful judge, though we obviously had our differences. It struck me as rather petty to begrudge him use of a title specifically provided for under Federal practice, bespeaking an ulterior motive.

As for you NoVA Scout, once again, you belittle (i.e., comparing my practice with "jailhouse lawyers"). What kind of Conservative, I wonder, compares a Right to Work practice with a "jailhouse lawyer"? Is my practice the equivalent of Ted Olsen's? Hardly. Never claimed it was. I'm not a Supreme Court (or even appellate) specialist. But then, unlike you, I don't make claims that can't be verified, and keep secret whatever ulterior motives might be lurking in my comments. Unlike many attorneys, my colleagues and I shephard our cases from initial filing to whatever appellate level at which they top out. And win most (if not all) of them, at least in part.

Walt Cleeland said...

I don't get you, Mr. Young. This NoVA guy simply stated that the "practice" you describe is similar to what "jailhouse lawyers" do in relation to the Supreme Court. If that's belittling to you, maybe you need a thicker skin. And what's with bringing the "conservative" issue into the discussion? As far as I'm concerned, you're starting to give real conservatives a bad name. We need folks who can stand up for conservative ideals and get things done, not just piss off everyone they meet.

James Young said...

I don't "get you," either, Walt. As for a "thicker skin," some people have said so. It's not so much that I lack a "thick skin" as that I dislike pretensions, i.e., variously appealing to and abandoning objective values as it serves your purposes.

And I'm "starting to give real conservatives a bad name"? How's that? So far as I know, we've never met (nor have I ever met NoVA Scout, so far as I know), so I don't know about "piss[ing] off everybody [I] meet." I only try to "piss off": (a) Liberals; and (b) people who claim to be "conservative" while pursuing Liberal goals. But I repeat myself.

At least I wasn't gratuitously attacking someone with half-a**ed research simply in response to an effort at humor.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Young are you a Christian? I couldn't tell by the tenor of your remarks. My name is Tony Ares and I was hopeful about dialoging with you. If you are a Christian, in Philippians it speaks about esteeming one another and edifying one another. Is this site about rational dialogue which edifies our community or is it about insulting remarks which excite a certain base conservative element? If you are not a Christian then I understand your conversation.

James Young said...

Mr. Ares, feel free to post, but I'm not interested in "dialoguing" --- I mainly just talk, and sometimes, even communicate --- with anyone who feels free to question another's Christian faith, or to paint with the broad brush of racism that you did in your letter to the Pot. News, particularly when the accusation was so demonstrably false. There's nothing "rational" about that.

As for that "accusation," I realize that it's a useful political device --- the nuclear bomb of political discourse --- but I find it odd that you would purport to practice your pieties in public after doing so.

Anonymous said...

(Tony Ares) Mr. Young, I have worked with SOME conservatives who flagrantly told me that they wanted their kids to go to private schools to get away from black kids. If my comments offended you then I apologize, that was not the purpose. I am sure SOME conservatives want private schools for the right reasons. I want private schools for budget reasons. I think that I agree with you on many issues and I respect anyone who passionately believes whatever they believe. At least you believe in something and you are willing to take a stand. As for the Christian remark...I think that we should all challenge each others faith in love. I was trying to find some common ground. This will be my last post and I wish you well.