• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Obama Taps Ex-Sonnenschein Partner for Ambassador to Canada | Main | Senate Judiciary Republicans Staffing up for Sotomayor »

June 05, 2009


Terrance G. Lohr, Esq.

Is it not the job of the Appellate court to follow and "square" with the Supreme Court and the relevant Circuit Court?? Ms. Roberts' comment suggests that it is also part of the appellate judge's job to disregard the precedent laid down by the Supreme Court if that particular judge has a different interpretation of the Constitution. Some factions might call that "an activist judge." No, I must disagree with Ms. Roberts and respectfully suggest that following precedent is perhaps the most important and fundamental role of the appellate-level judges. If they believe that the law, whether statutory or caselaw, requires some change, then the judge is free to editorialize within his or her Opinion, urging the Supreme Court to make the change.

Lynne Roberts

"......allows us to obtain much greater confidence that our holdings square with existing precedent, with Supreme Court and Second Circuit jurisprudence, and with good common sense."

Why does she not say "square with the Constitution? Precedent can be wrong. Humans make mistakes. Decisions should be made with the "Constitution" as the "squaring" tool. I am very bothered by this tradition of precedent.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad