This Day in Legal History: President Johnson Acquitted
On May 16, 1868, a significant moment in U.S. legal and political history occurred when President Andrew Johnson was acquitted in his impeachment trial. Johnson, who had ascended to the presidency following the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, was charged with high crimes and misdemeanors, primarily stemming from his violations of the Tenure of Office Act. This law, which was later repealed, had been designed to restrict the power of the President to remove certain officeholders without the Senate’s approval.
The crux of the case against Johnson was his attempt to remove Edwin Stanton, the Secretary of War, without Senate consent, which ignited a fierce political battle with the Radical Republicans who dominated Congress. These lawmakers sought a stricter Reconstruction of the Southern states following the Civil War, a process Johnson had obstructed through his lenient policies towards the former Confederate states.
The impeachment trial in the Senate was a closely watched affair, reflecting deep national divisions during a tumultuous period in American history. Johnson narrowly escaped removal from office by one vote, securing a "not guilty" verdict with a tally of 35-19, just shy of the two-thirds majority required for conviction.
This verdict had lasting implications for the balance of power between the presidency and Congress, highlighting the complexities of presidential impeachment. Johnson’s trial set a significant precedent, establishing that political disagreements alone were not sufficient grounds for removal from office under the Constitution. This event remains a pivotal chapter in the saga of American governance and legal standards, underscoring the enduring struggle over the limits of presidential authority.
Ghostwriting in legal briefs refers to the practice where an experienced attorney, often a specialist in Supreme Court matters, writes or significantly contributes to a brief without their name appearing on the document. This tactic is predominantly used in opposition briefs—the documents that argue why the Supreme Court should not agree to hear a particular case. The strategy behind ghostwriting is to leverage the expertise of seasoned Supreme Court advocates without drawing attention to the case with a high-profile name. This can make the brief more persuasive without signaling that the case might be significant enough to warrant the Court's attention.
Despite there being no explicit rules against ghostwriting in court documents, and the American Bar Association deeming it ethically permissible under certain circumstances, the practice has sparked debate. Critics, like law professor Daniel Epps, argue that it might be seen as misleading because it intentionally hides the involvement of influential lawyers to influence the Court's decisions indirectly. Advocates of transparency suggest that disclosing all authors of a brief could lead to more informed decision-making by the justices.
However, some legal experts argue that ghostwriting is detectable by justices familiar with the distinct writing styles and argumentative structures typical of veteran Supreme Court lawyers. This recognition could potentially undermine the purpose of ghostwriting by making the justices aware of the underlying significance and expert handling of the case. Despite these concerns, ghostwriting remains a utilized, albeit controversial, tactic in the strategic presentation of cases to the Supreme Court.
Ghostwriters Try Steering Supreme Court Justices Away from Cases (https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-...)
Quinn Emanuel, a prominent law firm, has integrated an AI-powered tool from Pre/Dicta to predict judicial decisions in litigation cases, enhancing strategic planning and case management. The tool, developed by Pre/Dicta—a company specializing in judicial analytics—utilizes artificial intelligence to analyze various judge-specific factors such as age, gender, education, and net worth, which the company's CEO, Dan Rabinowitz, suggests, in reporting by Bloomberg Law, influence decision-making. This predictive capability is seen as critical for litigators, akin to writing briefs.
The technology is designed to anticipate judges' rulings on various motions including summary judgments, class certifications, and venue transfers with an impressive accuracy of about 85%, as evidenced by tests on 50,000 cases. Ryan Landes, a partner at Quinn Emanuel, highlights the strategic advantage this provides, potentially altering the cost-benefit analysis of legal actions based on predicted outcomes.
Currently, the tool is used only for analyzing federal court cases, with plans to expand to state court cases, starting with California. This AI application underscores the broader trend of law firms leveraging new technologies to improve efficiency and decision-making.
Quinn Emanuel Ad...
Информация по комментариям в разработке