It looks to me like a bunch of very expensive people arguing how many angels can fit on the head of a pin, at the expense of the people who actually do things that are useful.
You'd be surprised, Mq., really surprised, at the time and effort some very bright people put into making the correct decisions, particularly at the judicial level we are discussing.
A brief outline:
Expert witnesses are critical in these cases. They are presented to the courts for their opinions. Before they provide actual testimony, their opponents get to discover what their proposed testimony will be. The experts' professional lives are scrutinized, their previous testimony is put under a looking glass, etc. If there are holes in their logic or their methods, such holes are exposed. In short, each sides' arguments are thoroughly tested before they are presented to the courts.
The judges get the benefit of all this preparation. The judges do not work alone; they are assisted by very bright young law graduates who do a lot of the drudgery for them. A court of appeals "elbow" law clerk is typically in the top 5% of his class at a prestigious law school. These youngsters are terribly bright and energetic.
In short, the judges do not rule in a vacuum. Because of their nature of their work, they are quick and effective studies of complex matters. Their daily fare includes criminal, tax, tort, administrative, maritime, etc., matters. They are generally a very thoughtful bunch who do their best to get it right. They generally do.
Sure, it's an expensive process. Microsoft got a good result even though it no doubt spend tens of millions defending itself. This is a pittance in the grand scheme of things, a very small percentage of the recent dividend. |
