Skip to main content

A question for my lawyer friends out there

Adam G. Ciongoli, the general counsel of a big insurance company, argued a case before the Supreme Court last week. But he was not representing his employer. Indeed, he was not representing any client at all.

Mr. Ciongoli was there because neither the prosecution nor the defense was willing to support a particularly harsh sentencing decision from the federal appeals court in St. Louis. The Supreme Court had appointed him to defend the decision because no one else would.

The court uses that odd procedure roughly every year or so. It is a great honor for the lawyer involved, but it raises questions about whether the court is engaged in a kind of judicial activism in shaping the case before it.

The adversary system generally allows the parties to decide which issues to present. And the Constitution says that federal courts should decide only actual cases and controversies.

I've spent some time around the law, but I'm no lawyer. But this heretofore-unknown-to-me practice does raise a question about the law, then: If the Supreme Court *actively appoints lawyers to argue cases that have nobody arguing them* how could it ever justify the dismissal of a case based on "standing"?

I ask this, because there's a theory floating around that the U.S. Court of Appeals will dismiss the Proposition 8 case for lack of standing -- the governor and attorney general of California won't defend the measure, so a private group has stepped forward to do so. The argument is that group, not being the state, lacks the standing to defend the measure. So the court could dismiss the case, letting Prop 8 be overturned in California -- but letting the Supreme Court avoid the thorny question of gay marriage rights in the Constitution.

Which might sound like a swell "half a baby" compromise to those interested in limiting judicial activism -- but again, if the Supreme Court can appoint people to argue the cases that (essentially) it wants to hear, wouldn't dismissal based on standing be more a political move than a legal one? What am I missing?


Guy Chambliss said…
Excellent points, Joel, about the seeming difference in the way the Supreme Court handles different kinds of cases. Non-lawyers want to know the specific parameters that may justify the dismissal of a case on the basis of 'standing.'

Popular posts from this blog


I've been making some life changes lately — trying to use the time I have, now that I'm back in Kansas, to improve my health and lifestyle. Among the changes: More exercise. 30 minutes a day on the treadmill. Doesn't sound like a lot, but some is more than none, and I know from experience that getting overambitious early leads to failure. So. Thirty minutes a day.

One other thing: Yoga, a couple of times a week. It's nothing huge — a 15-minute flexibility routine downloaded from an iPhone app. But I've noticed that I'm increasingly limber.

Tonight, friends, I noticed a piece of trash on the floor. I bent over at the waist and picked it up, and threw it away.

Then I wept. I literally could not remember the last time I'd tried to pick something off the floor without grunting and bracing myself. I just did it.

Small victories, people. Small victories.

Liberals: We're overthinking this. Hillary didn't lose. This is what it should mean.

Nate Cohn of the New York Times estimates that when every vote is tallied, some 63.4 million Americans will have voted for Clinton and 61.2 million for Trump. That means Clinton will have turned out more supporters than any presidential candidate in history except for Obama in 2008 and 2012. And as David Wasserman of Cook Political Report notes, the total vote count—including third party votes—has already crossed 127 million, and will “easily beat” the 129 million total from 2012. The idea that voters stayed home in 2016 because they hated Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is a myth. We already know the Electoral College can produce undemocratic results, but what we don't know is why — aside from how it serves entrenched interests — it benefits the American people to have their preference for national executive overturned because of archaic rules designed, in part, to protect the institution of slavery. 

A form of choosing the national leader that — as has happened in …

I'm not cutting off my pro-Trump friends

Here and there on Facebook, I've seen a few of my friends declare they no longer wish the friendship of Trump supporters — and vowing to cut them out of their social media lives entirely.

I'm not going to do that.

To cut ourselves off from people who have made what we think was a grievous error in their vote is to give up on persuading them, to give up on understanding why they voted, to give up on understanding them in any but the most cartoonish stereotypes.

As a matter of idealism, cutting off your pro-Trump friends is to give up on democracy. As a matter of tactics, cutting off your pro-Trump friends is to give up on ever again winning in a democratic process.

And as a long-term issues, confining ourselves to echo chambers is part of our national problem.

Don't get me wrong: I expect a Trumpian presidency is a disaster, particularly for people of color. And in total honesty: My own relationships have been tested by this campaign season. There's probably some damage…