The Corner

Legal Blecturing

I’ve been lectured by someone named Greg Newburn on his blog http://gregnewburn.blogspot.com/2005/03/hard-cases-make-bad-pundits.html about comments I made in the last couple of weeks about the 11th Circuit’s denial of en banc review in the Schiavo case. I assume the comments are directed at me, rather than my wife, since Mr. Newburn is casting aspersions upon a Ms. Coffin (a subject we’ve covered thoroughly before).

I had written in exasperation at the court’s denial of en banc reconsideration of the appeal: “The Congress and President of the United States thought this issue important enough to drop everything and focus entirely on this single case in enacting legislation designed to address what they viewed as a matter of critical national importance. You are free to disagree with their assessment if you choose, but it strikes me as the height of judicial arrogance that the District Court and at least six of twelve judges of the Eleventh Circuit do not view the legislation enacted as sufficiently important enough to extend Terri Schaivo’s life a few days in order to allow a more careful examination of the issues in the case.”

Mr. Newburn, calling this analysis “some of the worst I’ve seen lately,” explains to me that:

Judges at the appellate level do not look to the “importance” of a law when deciding cases under that law. They don’t do it generally, and they didn’t do it here. In fact, deciding a case by making reference to some piece of legislation’s “importance” is precisely what the Courts are NOT supposed to do. The job of the Appeals Court is to figure out whether a trial court abused its discretion or committed some other type of legal error when making its decision. . . . What that means, Shannen, is that Courts have certain procedures, and certain rules to follow, and certain standards to apply to the facts of a case. If the facts of a case don’t fit the standard for, say, an injunction, a good opinion won’t grant that injunction.

Hmmmm, interesting thought, but let’s take a look at the very rule of procedure that governed the 11th Circuit’s consideration of the en banc petition. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35 provides that en banc reconsideration may be ordered where “the proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance.” My point was simply that the Eleventh Circuit did not take the governing rules seriously enough. Their conduct contrasted starkly with a case I argued to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York a couple of years ago, where a plane was waiting on an air force base tarmac to fly millions of dollars of former Iraqi money back to Iraq to assist in rebuilding. The court, faced with a serious although not overwhelming claim that the money belonged to someone else, ordered the government to take the money off of the plane for a week to allow them to consider the claims. Otherwise, they would be moot. The same consideration was not given to an innocent person’s life in the Schiavo case. And that result would obtain even if you looked at the law.

I don’t wish to get into a tit-for-tat about the standards for preliminary injunctive relief in federal court, but suffice it to say, on the sliding scale that applies in most federal courts, Terri’s family had a good enough claim for relief that it deserved a second look. Whether they would have prevailed on the merits or not, a subject to which my post did not speak, is a different question entirely. Mr. Newburn, save your lectures for the less informed of your readers.

Most Popular

Politics & Policy

Students’ Anti-Gun Views

Are children innocents or are they leaders? Are teenagers fully autonomous decision-makers, or are they lumps of mental clay, still being molded by unfolding brain development? The Left seems to have a particularly hard time deciding these days. Take, for example, the high-school students from Parkland, ... Read More
PC Culture

Kill Chic

We live in a society in which gratuitous violence is the trademark of video games, movies, and popular music. Kill this, shoot that in repugnant detail becomes a race to the visual and spoken bottom. We have gone from Sam Peckinpah’s realistic portrayal of violent death to a gory ritual of metal ripping ... Read More
Elections

Romney Is a Misfit for America

Mitt’s back. The former governor of Massachusetts and occasional native son of Michigan has a new persona: Mr. Utah. He’s going to bring Utah conservatism to the whole Republican party and to the country at large. Wholesome, efficient, industrious, faithful. “Utah has a lot to teach the politicians in ... Read More
Law & the Courts

What the Second Amendment Means Today

The horrifying school massacre in Parkland, Fla., has prompted another national debate about guns. Unfortunately, it seems that these conversations are never terribly constructive — they are too often dominated by screeching extremists on both sides of the aisle and armchair pundits who offer sweeping opinions ... Read More
U.S.

Fire the FBI Chief

American government is supposed to look and sound like George Washington. What it actually looks and sounds like is Henry Hill from Goodfellas: bad suit, hand out, intoning the eternal mantra: “F*** you, pay me.” American government mostly works by interposition, standing between us, the free people at ... Read More
Film & TV

Black Panther’s Circle of Hype

The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) first infantilizes its audience, then banalizes it, and, finally, controls it through marketing. This commercial strategy, geared toward adolescents of all ages, resembles the Democratic party’s political manipulation of black Americans, targeting that audience through its ... Read More