Disability Law Blog

23 Questions for Seventh Circuit Judge Diane S. Sykes

Via How Appealing:  Circuit Judge Diane S. Sykes, the newest members of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, is interviewed by Thomas S. Fisher of the Office of the Indiana Attorney General. An excerpt about good brief writing:

"Some basic rules: Take the time to identify and state the issues with precision and clarity. Begin the argument section with the legal standards that govern the appeal, and then discuss and resolve the individual issues in the case. Do not overstate case holdings or legal propositions in the case law. Remember to tell the court what you want in terms of a holding -- something more specific than "affirm" or "reverse."

Common mistakes are: weak articulation of the issues; poor organization; too much actual detail; too many block quotes; long headings and subheadings; hyperbole. For other rules, perils, and pitfalls, reread (or read for the first time) Strunk & White's Elements of Style. I return to this classic often, the following admonition from the book is humbling, but time-honored and true: "Think of the tragedies that are rooted in ambiguity, and be clear! When you say something, make sure you have said it. The chances of your having said it are only fair."

20 Questions for Circuit Judge Frank H. Easterbrook Now at How Apppealing

How Appealing has posted answers to its latest 20 Questions, this time for Circuit Judge Frank H. Easterbrook of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. An excerpt:

"Lawyers tend to be wretched writers, which is odd given that the written word is their stock in trade. Perhaps the problem comes from reading principally the work of other lawyers. Judges and other lawyers should spend more time with books and magazines, where exposition is at a higher level. If all lawyers would read Strunk & White and Garner even once, the world would be a better place. A turn through Ambrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary wouldn't hurt, either."

20 Questions for 9th Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt

Over at How Appealing, Howard Bashman (who just opened his little boutique) has posted his 20 Questions for Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Very interesting reading:

"I suppose that I first realized that my views would often differ from those of the majority of the Supreme Court in 1986, when President Reagan elevated Justice Rehnquist to Chief Justice and appointed Antonin Scalia to be an Associate Justice. President Reagan made no secret of his desire to alter radically the composition of the federal judiciary from his first days in office. What these appointments did was make it plain that future Supreme Court opinions would not only reach different results, but would generally look and sound much different from those issued during the post-New Deal era of enlightenment -- that there would be a retrenchment in the scope of the rights afforded all Americans. As the President appointed more and more federal judges -- with very few exceptions individuals who passed the Reagan Administration's various ideological and issue-specific litmus tests -- the courts gradually shifted farther and farther to the right of the ideological spectrum."

Even those who would argue that the shift was not radical would be hard pressed to say that the judicial system, as a whole, was not considerably more conservative and far more interested in states rights and less in civil rights in 1988 than it was in 1980 when I was appointed. This rightward turn was made complete in 1990 and 1991, when the first President Bush replaced Justices Brennan and Marshall with Justices Souter and Thomas, thereby replacing the last true liberals on the Supreme Court with one moderate and one extreme conservative. Unfortunately, the policy of "judicial restraint" that we were told would result from this transformation has paradoxically resulted in an increasingly active judiciary, willing to strike down a litany of congressional laws and executive regulations that previously would have been considered unexceptional. The casualty of this movement has been the concern for social justice and individual rights that once served as the guiding principle of the judicial branch.

20 Questions for 10th Circuit Chief Judge Deanell Reece Tacha

Over at How Appealing, Chief Judge Deanell Reece Tacha answers Howard Bashman's "20 Questions for the Appellate Judge." Good reading with an important section on pronunciation:

"I have been asked often about the derivation and pronunciation of my last name. Tacha is my married name. My husband's family is Czech and the surname is of Czech derivation. We are told that the name originally in Bohemia was spelled "Ptacha." At some point during their immigration to America, the family dropped the "p" but kept the "c." The "c" is silent so Tacha is pronounced "Ta-ha." I have wished many times that they had dropped the "c" out of it as well. It would have made pronunciation much easier.

My maiden name is Reece – a good Welsh name which is much easier to pronounce! My first name also confounds many people. Rather than being a misinformed corruption of the French "Danielle," it is a very Americanized combination of my two grandmothers' names: "Dean" and "Nell"!"

A short bio is here.

20 Questions for 7th Circuit Judge Posner at How Appealing

Howard Bashman over at How Appealing has posted December's 20 Questions for Seventh Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner.

For recent Social Security disability decisions authored by Judge Posner, see Henderson v. Barnhart, No. 03-1828, __F.3d __ (7th Cir. November 12, 2003) and Keys v. Barnhart, No. 02-4219, __ F.3d __ (7th Cir. October 29, 2003).

If you'd like more from Judge Posner, try Law, Pragmatism and Democracy at Amazon.