The highlights:
She hit lawyers with precise questions that weren't unduly aggressive, and she made her points. What's more, she showed why many people think she'll be a true force on the Court: She effectively drew in other the justices with her questions--asking a follow up to a question by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for example, and then striking true gold by piquing the interest of human jump ball Justice Anthony Kennedy.
When Justice Kennedy perks up and tells a lawyer, "I want to know your answer to Justice Kagan's question," that means one thing. Justice Kagan is having a Very Good Day.
And...
Her questions were clear, concise and exactly on point. She pulled together various points other justices were making, and her demeanor was at once sincere and respectful, yet also forceful and confident.
One of the big differences between law school moot court and the real world is that the questions the panel asks can be very different in type and tone. In the real world, judges generally ask questions for two reasons: Because they have very real concerns they need addressed, or because they're trying to convince their fellow brethren of their own position. In moot court world, judges are asking questions only because they're supposed to -- the ballot would have them award points for a student's ability to answer questions, and the purpose of the questions is to test the students' knowledge of the record/caselaw and the students' ability to think on their feet. That sometimes makes for unrealistic rounds.
Barbara Kritchevsky, Professor and Director of Advocacy at the University of Memphis Cecil M. Humphreys School of Law, wrote an interesting article in 2006, titled "Judging: The Missing Piece of the Moot Court Puzzle." 37 U. Mem. L. Rev. 45 (2006). Kritchevsky essentially argues that competitions should stress upon judges to approach rounds as if they were real judges, and to ask questions that would help them understand the advocates' arguments and their implications.
0 comments:
Post a Comment