Verification Re: understanding of precedent

[Richard D. Friedman]

I assumed that Sandy really did display a collegial spirit.  I agree with
him that when you're considering signing an amicus brief -- at least as one
of the amici, as opposed to a lawyer representing the amici-- you're
basically telling the Court, "I didn't have to do this, and I'm asking you
to accept this view in part because it's what I think and I'm hoping you'll
give some credence to that."  And that means you've got to be in pretty
substantial agreement.  But I don't think I'd go to the full length of
saying don't sign an amicus you wouldn't have put in under your own name,
because I think that any group project requires some willingness to
compromise on exact language and standards.  So maybe -- to bring it back
to Evan's original points -- "we" should be substituted for "I" in the
above hypothetical quotation, because it is after all a group project,
likely to be received and understood by the Court as such, and the Court is
likely to understand the need for compromise -- IF the thing is going to be
produced, which doesn't have to happen.

And not to multiply e-mails -- I think Craig Oren is right that DDE ran
from NY the first time, and I'm still pretty sure it was from PA the second
time.  Haven't confirmed this.

Rich Friedman

At 02:40 PM 7/24/00 -0500, you wrote:
>Rich Friedman writes:
>
> >
> >Sandy's abstemiousness in signing amicus briefs and the like is an
> >interesting analogy, but it's only an analogy and I don't think it quite
> >fits the case of judges.  You don't HAVE to sign an amicus brief, but if
> >you're an appellate judge you pretty much have to vote and write or join an
> >opinion.  And there's no voting of amici, as there is among appellate
> >judges.  I think a better analogy is to faculty committee reports.  I would
> >probably want to throttle a colleague who refused to sign a report unless
> >he or she agreed with pretty much every word.  And if most colleagues were
> >similarly insistent, we probably wouldn't bargain and we'd wind up with
> >seriatim reports, to our detriment.  You're not that much of a pain on your
> >faculty, are you, Sandy?
> >
>I'm glad to say the answer is no.  I think that Rich is right as to faculty
>reports being a better analogy.  But does this suggest that he agrees with
>the view that academics ought not sign amicus briefs that they would not
>publish under their own (sole) name?
>
>Sandy