|"One small step, or medium step,|
by the Supreme Court"
"Most people don't know what Court of Appeal justices do, and that includes many trial judges. Generally a Court of Appeal justice writes opinions; "grinds them out" would be a better way of saying it. Henry Ford would approve. The opinions bump along the assembly line and then chug down the road to oblivion. Along the way they are used or misused by attorneys or judges, who sometimes read them."
Next, in his On Appeals column, Myron Moskovitz presents What's the Story? in which he urges lawyers to "Keep the trial judge interested, and give appellate lawyers the ammo [they] need to perk up appellate judges and their staff attorneys." "Trial lawyers try cases to jurors that want to hear a good story. Surprisingly to some people, appellate judges are just as human as those jurors. The written opinions of appellate courts might sometimes seem dry and legalistic, but that's because their traditional role is to appear unemotional. Usually, their opinions don't reveal how much the story affected them."
Yesterday, Law360 presented Camera-Shy Justice Watch as Courts OK Video Coverage, about how virtually all state high courts allow cameras in the courtroom and so SCOTUS is out of step in refusal to allow them.
Also yesterday, the NLJ ran an editorial: States' High Courts Sorely Lacking in Diversity
Twenty-five states have all-white Supreme Courts. Merit selection, instead of elections, could help.