The reaction to efforts to “explain” for the sake of distinguishing why Brett Talley wasn’t qualified to be a federal judge proved to be curious. Most of the arguments centered on the fact that he had only “practiced” for three years, had never tried a case, “never even argued a motion!” Certainly these aren’t the sorts of things that give rise to a sense of competence, but I admonished Talley’s detractors to be careful.
Elena Kagan: 3 years practice. Never tried a case. Prawf & dean. 1 year as solicitor general. Sup Ct justice. Be careful.
This brought a flurry of retorts designed to distinguish Kagan from Talley. Notably, few raised the most substantive distinction, that her decades of experience as a scholar provided Justice Kagan with a base of knowledge and experience, even if not the same as actually trying a case, that Talley lacks. One could argue whether writing law review articles and being on panels discussing legal theory is the equivalent, or perhaps even better, experience, but that wasn’t where this headed.
Rather, the argument was that a judge of a district court, where trials happened, needed a different skillset than an appellate judge. The district judge was, I was informed, a glorified calendar clerk, pushing cases in and out, while an appellate judge was expected to have a brain and be capable of serious legal thought. Continue reading
