The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
What Supreme Court Advocates Mean When We Say "Those Are Good Facts"
Usually, "good" facts for a cert petition represent unfortunate human suffering.
Recently, I was speaking to a group of high school students about Supreme Court advocacy. I referenced a recent cert grant, involving a veteran who was injured in war, and suffered a debilitating injury. I said, without thinking about it, "those are good facts." I immediately stopped myself, and realized that I just told a group of teenagers that it was "good" this poor veteran was in such pain. I then realized how perverse it is that Supreme Court advocates often have to fish around (to use a word for the day) for sympathetic plaintiffs who have been subject to unfair or harmful treatment. Bad facts make bad law. But sad facts can make a cert grant.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Is that really the case? I have seen lots of SCOTUS decisions that don't fit that pattern. Maybe that's a function of my being primarily an IP attorney.
I would think a difficult or important issue of law, or a split among the lower courts, would be more likely to gather attention than a sob-story or a claim the courts below got it wrong.
Ronaldus Maximus was still in the Oval Orifice when I got my M.D. so I know a little bit about practicing medicine (still practicing). And I moonlighted working ER’s for a few years (who can get by on what a Military O-3 Doctor makes? seriously, it wasn’t much) so I’ve seen a few dead babies, and it’s not the “Morning After Pill Misfiring”, that how it works. Certainly killing an 8 week old baby is less gruesome than an 18 week (do you tell the 18 year old crying girl that the “Clot” she passed was her dead baby’s arm that Kermit Gosnell left behind?) Abortionists never clean up their messes, they fly in and out, like Mafia hitmen, without the legal risks
Frank
Isn't finding "good facts" what plaintiffs lawyers have been doing since forever?
In the immortal words of Jackie Chiles, "Jackie's cashing in on your wretched disfigurement!"
Josh, this hanging out with teenagers can come to no good end, and there’s no Ifs, ands, or butts, Well hopefully there are a few “Butts” (Big Ones!!!!!) Was actually relieved when my daughters (go ahead Queenie, take your best shot) left for college, regularly having a coterie of teenage girls in the house was horrible for my Prostrate (much better now!) You know how teenage girls (go ahead Queenie) are naturally attracted to wealthy powerful (and good looking) men…
Frank
The modifiers "persuasive" or "compelling" would be useful in this situation.
“We” ????
edit: "????" is where I typed a lauging emoji, but the question marks work too.
Yes, we often run into this problem. Personally, I often say, "this case has facts that make it a good vehicle, but I don't know how the rest of us handle it.