Connect with us

All Articles

(Chief) Justice at the Law School

Did you know that John G. Roberts, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, was at the Law School a few days ago judging the final round of the Harlan Fiske Stone Moot Court Competition? Neither did we.

But he was! Roberts and three other appeals court judges heard two cases presented by law students. The Times calls Roberts an “acknowledged master” of appellate argument, which Roberts explains as when “the judges are debating among themselves and just using the lawyers as a backboard. One of the real challenges for lawyers is to get involved in that debate.” (Bwog’s still fuzzy on the details.)

After Roberts finished critiquing the students, the other judges took their turn critiquing Roberts. “Two of the appeals court judges said the Supreme Court might work a little harder to establish clear principles.”

The article is a bit technical and hard to follow if you’re not law school-bound, though the law school’s own recap is not as jargony and features lots of photos. Imagine all this, right under our undergraduate noses.

Write a comment

Your email address will not be published.



  • do the bwog says:

    @do the bwog editors check the columbia main page? the story’s been posted on it since the day it happened. lazy, lazy.

  • CLS Flunky says:

    @CLS Flunky You would’ve been bored to tears. I got to the law school and I was bored.

    Moot Court is meant to simulate apellate advocacy. Unlike at trial, there are very specific issues in play (in this case, it involved class action certification and statutory interpretation). Both sides prepare meticulously researched briefs that lay out their argument in annotated detail and submit them to the court.

    Then, the counselors come before the court and engage in a 15 minute oral argument, where the court gets to pepper them with any question they feel like. It’s a pretty intense experience. This is what you’ve probably heard about (with the traffic light in the Supreme Court that informs lawyers how much time they have left).

    The funnier moments included Roberts pointing out that he’d briefed and argued both of the cases that formed a large part of the argument on one issue, and the appellate courts taking a shot at the supreme court, while Roberts acted mock indignant.

    Generally geeky and technical. We’ll keep you appraised of worthwhile events.

  • law student says:

    @law student appellate argument basically works like this: you slave your ass off on a long, tedious, well-researched argument. you submit it to the court, then show up to make your case with an eloquent, well-rehearsed speech. then they ask you irrelevant questions that you’re not prepared for, and you look like an idiot.

  • way says:

    @way to miss the news Bwog.

  • listen... says:

    @listen... justice is fat
    not blind

  • Baby Protector says:

    @Baby Protector He eats babies. That is why he doesn’t’ support stem cell research. He should not have been allowed at the law school. Now it seems like Columbia supports baby eating also.

  • Have Your Say

    What should Bwog's new tagline be?

    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...

    Recent Comments

    My cat understands when i say its too early. He huffed and walks away (read more)
    My Cat Doesn’t Care About My Education
    September 26, 2020
    same with dr. price's cat (read more)
    My Cat Doesn’t Care About My Education
    September 26, 2020
    My cat will interrupt my classes, not because he is hungry, but because he just wants some attention. However, I (read more)
    My Cat Doesn’t Care About My Education
    September 26, 2020
    idk man hunger games sounds kinda sick (read more)
    What Should CU’s Admissions Criteria Really Be
    September 26, 2020

    Comment Policy

    The purpose of Bwog’s comment section is to facilitate honest and open discussion between members of the Columbia community. We encourage commenters to take advantage of—without abusing—the opportunity to engage in anonymous critical dialogue with other community members. A comment may be moderated if it contains:
    • A slur—defined as a pejorative derogatory phrase—based on ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, ability, or spiritual belief
    • Hate speech
    • Unauthorized use of a person’s identity
    • Personal information about an individual
    • Baseless personal attacks on specific individuals
    • Spam or self-promotion
    • Copyright infringement
    • Libel
    • COVID-19 misinformation