|
It's an interesting question... A friend of mine is an attorney who had the honor of arguing in front of the justices once, which makes him much, much cooler than I'll ever be. His opinion of the process is that the difficult decision that gets heatedly fought over is the question of what cases to let in. The guidelines are very broad and Federal Government taking jurisdiction away from the states establishes unblinking precedent with every case that gets accepted.
Once a case is in, these are brilliant legal minds that don't actually disagree a whole lot. But as was mentioned, the legacy that each justice leaves behind is in the legal case studies that demand a well reasoned, balanced verdict is consistant and is well represented on both sides of the issue. I believe opposition papers are a pretty common part of law as a whole, and in particular with judges... My friend B, said he felt like an clerk again doing the grunt work, gathering the research, and mostly being ignored by the justices when he spoke, but loved every minute of it!
__________________
Oft expectation fails...
and most oft there Where most it promises
- Shakespeare, W.
|