LogFAQs > #979597414

ThePieReborn posted...

The academic issue is broadly applicable to appellate courts in general in recent years, especially where the issues are not "traditionally" emotional/high stakes. It was very apparent when the gay marriage cases were circulating in the circuit courts, and the same is true with respect to the various statutory schemes regarding transgender care. It's an unfortunate side effect of appellate judges being detached from the trial level: we only had access to a written transcript of the trial proceedings and testimony and copies of the exhibits. Without that personal touch, it's difficult to not approach appellate work in an academic way.

But you'd have to be totally insulated from society to not know about Trump's cases. Once again I can see that being applicable for the vast majority of cases, however this isn't that.

I'm still peeved that Brown-Jackson would pull that stupid "dur is the A14S3 even applicable to Presidents? Durrrr" nonsense when we'd already known about Trump's Project 2025 for a good long time. How would the A14S3 not be applicable to someone who was not only ruled an insurrectionist by 2 CO courts after evidence & trial (the USSC didn't discount their finding on this, they just didn't care), but basically promised to destroy the federal government so no one can stop him from doing what they want on their official campaign website, and she wants to fucking argue if the President is "actually an officer", even though their oath literally refers to it as the Office. A14S3 not being applicable to someone like Trump makes it seem largely useless, especially given that they went further than needed to neuter it.

That's the kind of thing that really pisses me off. It's like kids in a debate class where their decisions have no real ramifications to greater society.

ThePieReborn posted...

It also doesn't help that appellate judges are generally in situations where they are not personally impacted by the rules contained in the authored opinions. That insulation contributes very much so to the approach that appellate work is an academic exercise.

This is the conclusion I came to, that it's largely them being insulated from the ramifications of their decisions.

ThePieReborn posted...

Not to say that all judges are like that. When I was clerking and drafting opinions for my judge, one of the most important things for her was respecting the emotional investment of both the appellant and appellee in writing the opinion (where applicable; if it was an issue over money like a business to business breach of contract or something, she was generally "meh, it's just money"). While I try to be objective both in my work and personal comments, I keep that lesson in mind.

That's good, wish there was more like her.