The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Chief Justice Roberts' Remarks About Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart
Stewart argued Vidal v. Elster, the "Trump Too Small" trademark registration case Wednesday; but after his rebuttal, Chief Justice Roberts added:
Thank you, Mr. Stewart. If you'll linger at the podium just for a moment. Our records reflect that this is your or was your 100th argument before the Court. You are the fourth person to reach this rare milestone this century.
Throughout your career, you have consistently advocated positions on behalf of the United States in an exemplary manner. I recall one case in particular from my days in private practice 23 years ago in which I was counsel for petitioner and you argued in support of respondent.
Now, when the opinion came down, I was just nine votes short of a unanimous result—(Laughter.) for—for my client.
On behalf of the Court, I extend to you our appreciation for your advocacy before the Court and dedicated service as an officer of this Court. We look forward to hearing from you many more times.
I thought this was a nice touch, but I also think it highlighted two important aspects of law being a profession, which are in a sense obvious but sometimes forgotten.
First, the legal professions, like other professions, is a collection of people who particularly appreciate the respect and recognition of their fellows. Giving such respect is pleasant for the recipient, but it is also a reminder to fellow professionals about this human element. The message is, "We are all lawyers; we are all in this process together; we, and the legal system more generally, benefits if we express our respect for each other on occasion."
Second, the legal profession, like other professions, is a collection of people who are trained in a certain set of skills, and who respect each other in part based on the possession of those skills, even when they are on opposite sides of a dispute. The Chief Justice's reminiscence in the second half of his comments helps show that; the message is: "I may not agree with your position; I may even be arguing against your position; but I appreciate your professional achievements, and I can acknowledge them and vote against you despite that."
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
That "nine votes short" is a nice gag...
Reminiscent of Richie Benaud's line when Glenn McGrath was out, once, "just 98 runs short of his century". Admittedly a few posters here might not quite get it..
Nicer still if he'd stopped with "short."
One big happy cartel!
Best response & could not be any more true.
First, the legal professions, like other professions, is a collection of people who particularly appreciate the respect and recognition of their fellows . . .
Unless you're a Kraken then it's Full Steam Ahead and Damn the Torpedos!
(But then you get blowed up anyway.)
Agree or disagree with his opinions over the years, there is no doubt that Chief Justice Roberts is a class act.
Why do you say that?
Chief Justice Roberts is not who I would call a class act on any level. He is awful.
So, has anyone bothered to figure out which case Roberts was referring to?
How could I resist?
Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers of America, 531 U.S. 57 (2000)
Thanks!
Wish that he'd have a public statement on the Leftists who filed bar complaints (or tied canceling) against any of the lawyers who took Trumps side on any issue over the last 6 years. Maybe Trump is too personal a issue, but I seem to recall a gun case that a couple of lawyers won, were congratulated on, then invited to quit their firm. An the Female partner who made a prolife statement in an internal firm meeting before being fired.
being professional means being professional all the time.
"invited to quit their firm"
It was the Bruen case and the firm was Kirkland & Ellis
Some of those lawyers committed sanctionable acts. Frauds upon the court (or attempted frauds) are not to be taken likely. If you have a pattern of doing so (and/or of being indicted for similar activities) bar complaints are exactly what one would expect.
Lawyers are given a lot of leeway to practice law and be zealous advocates. Pushing boundaries so to speak. But there is a line that one knows and learns not to cross. Don't be sad for those who crossed the line and got caught. They know what they did.
"line that one knows and learns not to cross."
The line is now representing Donald Trump.
Death row lawyers file appeal after appeal aimed solely at delay. Never sanctioned. Never criminally prosecuted.
Under what theory do you want death penalty defense lawyers criminally sanctioned?
I know you hate due process, but this is next level lust for death.
The line is now representing Donald Trump.
No, that line is agreeing to represent a client who demands who engage in unethical legal activity.
There's a reason why all the big firms abandoned Trump's attempts to overturn the election, it's because he wanted them to peddle easily disproven election conspiracies and they wanted no part of it.
There's lawyers who then took the bait and they're now experiencing the consequences.
Plenty of Trump lawyers advocated for clients' shitty positions without experiencing professional disciplinary proceedings, even after being laughed out of court.
Only the biggest assholes and most unprofessional losers of Trump Litigation: Elite Strike Force have been invited to try to defend their misconduct. Several have already admitted engaging in unprofessional conduct. Others seem destined to be disbarred, fined, admonished, and/or otherwise punished.
People who object to accountability for professional wrongdoing are lousy (and generally ignorant and antisocial) people.
There is currently pending litigation seeking to disqualify Donald Trump from next year's presidential election (i.e., to deprive millions of Americans of their choice for President). If the attorneys pursuing this litigation are successful, will you congratulate them on their "professional achievement"? I won't. I, along with millions of my fellow countrymen (and, if things go really bad, multitudes of Americans not yet born) will curse their name.