Terry Klein reviews Martha Coakley's performance before the Supreme Court this week, notes an embarrassing moment when she couldn't think of an answer to a specific question from Justice Kennedy:
... One of the keys to oral argument in appellate courts is coming up with an exhaustive list of potential questions from the judges and, of course, answers to those questions that help (or at least don't hurt) your case. A good way of filling in gaps in your list is to have a moot court. Or, if you're arguing before the United States Supreme Court, a *bunch* of moot courts.
Did that just not happen here? Or did the moot court judges not think of this question?
Free tagging:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Martha Coakley is a
By anon
Tue, 11/11/2008 - 12:54pm
Martha Coakley is a politician. She doesn't care about facts or laws or reasoning. She cares about sound bites, about saving face, and about her next rung on the political ladder.
She wanted to argue this case so that she could say she argued a case before the Supreme Court, and the conservative nature of the court means that she'll probably win, even without a solid argument. Nobody will care later that Martha Coakley looked like an idiot in front of the Supreme Court. They'll just remember (because she'll tell them) that she fought to keep criminal trials from getting longer or more expensive.
My impression exactly.
By NotWhitey
Tue, 11/11/2008 - 1:04pm
My impression exactly.
Martha Martha Martha
By Lanny Budd
Tue, 11/11/2008 - 1:19pm
I don't know Martha from Marsha, but I do see from her CV that she was in litigation for 20 some years before running for her first office.
And "she's a pol"?. Duh. The AG is elected.
That said, she should have been better prepped, if the accounting is fair.
You left out the most recent
By NotWhitey
Tue, 11/11/2008 - 4:20pm
You left out the most recent ten years, in elective office. And now talk is about her running for Governor or Senator just as soon as someone leaves or dies. I'd call that a pol.
you left out her finest hour,
By agingcynic
Tue, 11/11/2008 - 9:40pm
bigfooting the Amirault family in the Fells Acres case. Nice.
second finest hour
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 11/14/2008 - 4:42pm
Never once questioning or investigating the Eappen family's story, as they were apparently above suspicion due to their academic and socioeconomic standing. After all, there have never been any doctors who have ever beaten their kids! All the caregivers should been under suspicion from the get go.
Best Practices
By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 11/11/2008 - 4:43pm
Justice Kennedy's question is the standard sort of question that is asked when discussing the best way to go about things ... which was, in a way, what was going on here. What do others do and what was their experience?
Unfortunately, Coakley and the rest of the pack in this state don't believe in best practices, thinking "I'm in charge" and "Massachusetts is exceptionally different always" are acceptable reasons for not doing some pretty basic homework about available options and their relative merit.
She should have known better, and should have anticipated a challenge based on her assertions given the availability of data. She obviously thinks the same way many political aspirants have been trained to do in these parts, and I will consider it one more reason not to vote for her in the future.
Remember the mooninites? How other cities had few issues with them for months but Coakley went hog wild to make a grand statement and wouldn't back down when the rest of the country was laughing its arse off at her? Same problem - I'm in charge here + we're different = Another Massachusetts Festival of Stupid.
poor prep given Commonwealth's argument
By Anonymous
Wed, 11/12/2008 - 9:02am
anonymous
[sub]http://tinyurl.com/SayNotoJoe[/sub]
Martha Coakley's responsible for her own lack of preparation
By anon
Fri, 11/14/2008 - 3:40pm
Martha Coakley is not a poorly paid spokesperson for Massachusetts; she's the Attorney General, and she is supposed to be able to think for herself. The fact that she couldn't is nobody's fault but hers. She should take some responsibility for her own failures, of which this is just the latest.
re: Coakley
By anon
Fri, 11/14/2008 - 3:55pm
Agreed. And as a servant of the people, she should not be trying to take away the constitutional rights of people to cross-examine witnesses.
It's disgusting that a public servant would take away civil rights of the people they represent. Systems like this should be destroyed.
Adam, What gives with the
By Anonymous
Fri, 11/14/2008 - 9:25pm
Adam, What gives with the anon (not verified)'s
? I can't tell one from the next.