"Coakley had tough time in court; Fails to mention loss in Washington" by Frank Phillips, Globe Staff | October 23, 2009
For Attorney General Martha Coakley, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for US Senate [and] who has built her career as a prosecutor, an appearance before the nation’s highest court would seem to be a defining moment of her professional life. But Coakley makes no mention of it in her Senate campaign biography....
That's odd because she trumpeted this cause.
Related: Supreme Court Administers Truth Serum to Massachusetts
Justice Anthony Kennedy asked Coakley to explain why California, where lab technicians do take the stand, had not experienced such a burden. She responded that California was one of the 35 states supporting Massachusetts in the case. But Chief Justice John G. Roberts, in an awkward moment, had to point out later that California was not one of the 35.
This is our AG? HOW EMBARRASSING!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No, I DO NOT THINK sending someone who DOES NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING there is a good idea. God, Massachusetts must LOOK TERRIBLE to the rest of this nation!
Pressed by Kennedy, Coakley said she had no substantive knowledge of California’s experience. “I don’t have enough information about the way California works or doesn’t work,’’ she said.
Well, I CAN'T ARGUE WITH HER there!
That prompted Justice John Paul Stevens to interject, “Well, it seems to me it’s a very important point.’’
And he is one of the more "liberal" members!
In addition, she had trouble dealing with two other justices’ questions over distinctions between crime lab reports and eyewitness testimony, and, at one point, Kennedy pounced when Coakley began to respond to a question. “That’s a nonanswer,’’ he interrupted, with clear irritation.
Lyle Denniston, a veteran Supreme Court reporter who observed the session, said Coakley fared “very poorly.’’ “She simply flubbed it,’’ said Denniston, who has reported on the court for more than 50 years for the Globe and other newspapers, and now writes for SCOTUSblog, a blog of record on the court. “If you come before the Supreme Court, they expect you to know the record cold.’’
Um, YEAH, you would hope!! Yup, SHE can show up UNPREPARED but THAT'S OKAY! Try doing that during a job interview and see how far you get.
In an interview, Coakley dismissed the criticism, though she said, “I don’t deny it was a difficult experience. I feel I made a good argument.’’
Are YOU SMOKING SOMETHING, ma'am?
She asserted that her performance has no bearing on her ability to advocate for Massachusetts in the Senate....
Except for the LACK of RESPECT you will get!
Can't take this woman seriously, I'm sorry!
Coakley added that her decision to present the case personally saved taxpayers a large legal bill. Otherwise her office would have had to hire an expensive lawyer with a record of arguing cases before the court.
How about NOT TAKING THAT TYRANNICAL CASE down there, liberal fascist?
That would have SAVED US EVEN MORE!!!!!
Yeah, she DID YOU A FAVOR by ARGUING for TYRANNY!
Thank you, Supreme Court, for REJECTING HER ARGUMENT!
Oh, and LOOK who TRAINED HER for the APPEARANCE!
Coakley had not gone unprepared.
That makes it EVEN WORSE!
She was prepped by two well-known Harvard Law School professors, Alan Dershowitz and Charles Ogletree.
HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!
Her top aide, David S. Friedman, clerked with one of the court’s justices after graduating from Harvard Law and sat next to her at the hearing. The national attorneys generals organization arranged a special practice session with four lawyers steeped in Supreme Court appearances....
And she STILL LOOKED LIKE an IDIOT!
That ought to inform you about Dersh's lawyer skills. We all know what he is.
