
The SDFLA Blog is dedicated to providing news and notes regarding federal practice in the Southern District of Florida. The New Times calls the blog "the definitive source on South Florida's federal court system." All tips on court happenings are welcome and will remain anonymous. Please email David Markus at dmarkus@markuslaw.com
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
HMO settlement before Judge Moreno
For coverage of these proceedings, go check out SouthFloridaLawyers -- they're all over it.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Narseal Batiste: Day 5
Today was the fifth day on the stand for Narseal Batiste, the lead defendant in the Liberty City 7 case. He's still on direct. Curt Anderson has all the details and says that he is expected to testify the rest of the week! Is it me or is this way too long for anyone to be on the stand? I love the call for him to testify; it takes a lot of guts and is very high risk, high reward, but this seems to be too much. Thoughts?
UM law student in the blogosphere

We have posted about a UM law student in Playboy...
Now we have this UM law student, Jessica, as reported by AboveTheLaw.
Apparently, Mr. Lat can't get enough of South Florida...
If you want to see the video (I decided to take it down here), then go to AbovetheLaw.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Judicial Elections vs. Appointments
In theory, judicial elections seem like a great idea -- judges are accountable; it's democratic; we're not stuck with a bad judge for life...
But in practice, here in South Florida, judicial elections in the state system are problematic.
The biggest problem (at least for the lawyers) is campaign season. Everyone is asking for money for this fundraiser or that fundraiser even though the elections are a year away and even though most candidates do not have any challenger. Is it me or is this election cycle the earliest and most intense yet?
Then the election itself is not based on any particular position of the candidate. Candidates can't campaign on their personal beliefs. And it's not based on who is better qualified. There is really no rhyme or reason as to who gets elected.
Plus, it's difficult to tell why certain candidates draw opposition and others don't. Those with the lowest bar ratings oftentimes don't draw opposition, while those with the highest do. Many argue that the choices as to where to run are based largely on race and gender.
Don't get me wrong -- the federal system has its flaws too. It's nearly impossible to get rid of a bad judge, and robeitis (the disease that many lawyers get when they become judges) is particularly acute in the federal system. But I'll take the federal system of choosing judges any day to elections.
As a side note, the concern about politicizing the process is a valid concern, but look at Charlie Crist. He has made superb appointments in the state system, and they have been party-blind appointments.
What about elections from a small group of pre-qualified candidates? Or the state appellate system where voters could remove a poorly functioning judge? Thoughts?
But in practice, here in South Florida, judicial elections in the state system are problematic.
The biggest problem (at least for the lawyers) is campaign season. Everyone is asking for money for this fundraiser or that fundraiser even though the elections are a year away and even though most candidates do not have any challenger. Is it me or is this election cycle the earliest and most intense yet?
Then the election itself is not based on any particular position of the candidate. Candidates can't campaign on their personal beliefs. And it's not based on who is better qualified. There is really no rhyme or reason as to who gets elected.
Plus, it's difficult to tell why certain candidates draw opposition and others don't. Those with the lowest bar ratings oftentimes don't draw opposition, while those with the highest do. Many argue that the choices as to where to run are based largely on race and gender.
Don't get me wrong -- the federal system has its flaws too. It's nearly impossible to get rid of a bad judge, and robeitis (the disease that many lawyers get when they become judges) is particularly acute in the federal system. But I'll take the federal system of choosing judges any day to elections.
As a side note, the concern about politicizing the process is a valid concern, but look at Charlie Crist. He has made superb appointments in the state system, and they have been party-blind appointments.
What about elections from a small group of pre-qualified candidates? Or the state appellate system where voters could remove a poorly functioning judge? Thoughts?
Friday, November 09, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)