Thursday, October 04, 2007

Yesterday in Madison

While this may not be of general interest to either of you, I was in the Wisconsin Supreme Court yesterday. Once again, I was impressed with the conduct of the Court in oral argument. I like aggressive questions from an appellate court but the point of questions is to get an answer. I have to say that, while all of them challenged counsel, the Justices (even the ones I often disagree with)seemed to recognize that the point of asking a question was to get a response. You might learn something.

This should be routine rather than refreshing. But there are more appellate judges than you might imagine who don't get that.

And, while I know that it may get off-topic responses, I feel compelled to observe that new Justice Annette Ziegler asked some very good question.


illusory tenant said...

With counsel doubtless resisting the urge to incorporate the expression "gut check" in the response.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

I have found that some of the hardest questions that I ever had to answer were those that my children asked.

I do not know what you mean by good questions...

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:54 - Ziegler simply has to open her mouth and the Shark thinks whatever comes out of it is wonderful.

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:13 - Good one...IT was also very good...

Sharks bias is all to obvious in his support of someone from Marguette regardless of rule breaking and decieving the public to gain votes. It would seem to me that he should be doing just the opposite but maybe he also thinks that she's cute.

I still would like to know what he means by good questions...ones that lead to the resolution wanted?

Rick Esenberg said...

I thought that her questions, including those in a case that I had nothing to do with and about which I have no opinion, showed a good understanding of the issues i the case. I remarked upon it because she's new to the Court.

I also think the Chief Justice and Justice Butler, with whom I often disagree, asked good questions in both of the arguments that I saw.

Isn't that reference to her appearance a little too high on the sexist meter?

ted kennedys car said...

Rick, I admire your ability to ignore liberals goofs. Some of these nut jobs are off their rockers. It's really eye opening what has become of the Democratic party. I mean the lack of any mature leadership is breath taking.
It's intolerance and tantrums 24/7. It's not even about policy,it's about power and it's a game to most of these juveniles. If they lose, they come unglued.
Democrats believe their behavior is justified, because their causes are. R.I.P. Democratic party.

Anonymous said...

Rick -

I guess Kennedy indirectly responded by saying that you are ignoring the questions asked. He didn't say anything else of any real releavance or defense to your support of Ziegler. Matter of fact he didn't say anything at all.

I see you didn't deny thinking she was cute so no I don't think it was to high on the sexist meter. Cute can sometimes be more influential than some of the other labels people use.

You still didn't answer what a good question is, in your opinion. When I have a good understanding of something, I usually don't have questions, unless I'm seeing if someone else has a good understanding. Is that what you mean.

Rick Esenberg said...


I would prefer to think that KC means that I try not to rise to the bait.

By good question, I mean one that cuts to what is difficult about the question presented. When you say that, if you have a good understanding of something you have no questions, I think that you have in mind something that is clear cut. But the Supreme Court tends not to hear cases where the answer is easy (if it was, they wouldn't take the case) and so good questions tend to focus on what makes the case hard to decide and looks for some further argument or clarification on that.

Joe C. said...

I can vouch for the insanity of rising to the bait.

What's the point, honestly?

One should first seek to understand, then be understood. But, the order is almost always the opposite.

ted kennedys car said...

The lib lunatics don't like Ziegler because she kicked their collective liberal ass.
No need to respond to these flim flam artists and their rhetorical bait.
Ignore the cry babies and watch them come unglued. It's better than re-runs of Seinfeld.

Anonymous said...

So are you trying to support your conclusion with the questions or are you trying to get to a conclusion with the questions?

I don't think that people should have to beg the Supreme Court to do what is right and I think I disagree that the Court should not take cases with easy answers. (That would not keep the lower courts honest)

If you weren't so bias towards Ziegler, I could maybe accept that she asked good questions, but I know what she did and I know how she answered the questions during the campaign and I can't accept it at face value.

TKC - do you have anything that supports what Ziegler did or does your mind go further then being an attack dog?