Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Calif Supreme Ct v. Fed. Dist Ct  (Read 1282 times)

ucsblaw8

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 84
  • Jammin' in SB
    • View Profile
Calif Supreme Ct v. Fed. Dist Ct
« on: February 09, 2007, 01:16:41 PM »
Just curious...if you had to choose between two externships which way would you go?

California Supreme Court or Federal District Court?

Regarding "prestige" and for "resume building purposes" which would you pick?

thanks
shine on

Ronald Hyatt

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 295
  • Hedgehog
    • View Profile
Re: Calif Supreme Ct v. Fed. Dist Ct
« Reply #1 on: February 09, 2007, 04:18:53 PM »
Prestige-wise I vote Cal Supremes. Although many state supreme courts might be a tossup with any federal court, California has one of the foremost state supreme courts (along with the NY Court of Appeals) in the country. California and New York are constantly breaking new legal ground that the rest of the country falls in line behind.

Pedagogically, it depends on what you want to do. If you want to explore pure legal scholarship and policy (i.e. - academia, appellate practice, or policymaking), definitely go with the Supremes. If you want to be a trial lawyer, the district court will provide you with invaluable detailed knowledge of the ins-and-outs of a federal court.
"Freedom of speech doesn't protect speech that you like, freedom of speech protects speech that you hate."
http://imdb.com/name/nm0000465/bio

Budlaw

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 530
    • View Profile
Re: Calif Supreme Ct v. Fed. Dist Ct
« Reply #2 on: February 09, 2007, 06:30:06 PM »
California and New York are constantly breaking new legal ground that the rest of the country falls in line behind.


New York's pretty legit, but when you say "breaking new legal ground" for California, you should say "making up crap to further dilute the common law"

Blunderbuss

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Calif Supreme Ct v. Fed. Dist Ct
« Reply #3 on: February 09, 2007, 08:50:57 PM »
It also depends on which federal district you are talking about, SDNY for example, might be more prestigious than Supreme Ct. of Calif.   

ucsblaw8

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 84
  • Jammin' in SB
    • View Profile
Re: Calif Supreme Ct v. Fed. Dist Ct
« Reply #4 on: February 09, 2007, 09:25:12 PM »
It also depends on which federal district you are talking about, SDNY for example, might be more prestigious than Supreme Ct. of Calif.   

I would be at the Fed Dist Ct- Central District of California.

I have aspirations to be a law professor so I'm working to build my resume as much as I can right now. It's a long shot but I'm hoping to get there someday. It's a difficult choice between these two courts
shine on

wardwilliams

  • Guest
Re: Calif Supreme Ct v. Fed. Dist Ct
« Reply #5 on: February 10, 2007, 02:30:40 AM »
my opinion is take fed. dist ct over Ca supreme court. Federal court is more prestigious than state regardless the state court is CA.

ucsblaw8

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 84
  • Jammin' in SB
    • View Profile
Re: Calif Supreme Ct v. Fed. Dist Ct
« Reply #6 on: February 10, 2007, 02:47:17 AM »
my opinion is take fed. dist ct over Ca supreme court. Federal court is more prestigious than state regardless the state court is CA.

thanks for the help...and I agree, Fed is much more prestigious than State cts but my choices are the lowest Fed Ct vs. the highest State court...this is my dilemma
shine on

derkaiser

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
Re: Calif Supreme Ct v. Fed. Dist Ct
« Reply #7 on: February 10, 2007, 03:00:25 AM »
California and New York are constantly breaking new legal ground that the rest of the country falls in line behind.


New York's pretty legit, but when you say "breaking new legal ground" for California, you should say "making up crap to further dilute the common law"

What do you mean "dilute the common law"?  The common law is an amalgamation of thousands of court decision following and building upon prior decisions.  There would be no "common law" without taking a prior decision an adding something to it.  Those decision that fall from favor then do not become part of the "common law".  The "common law" cannot be diluted; either a decision becomes part of the "common law" or it doesn't, depending on whether subsequent courts follow it, or not.  If a decision is faulty or off-base, it is either not followed, or simply overturned.

As for the California Supreme Court, I'm sure they've had their ups and downs like any court.  But it would be hard to argue that any state court, other than the N.Y. Court of Appeals, has had a greater, or more beneficial (in my opinion), influence on American jurisprudence than the CA supreme court.  It was the first American court to strike down laws against miscegenation, for example.  Hell, two or three of Justice Traynor's opinions alone must have been read by nearly all of you 1l's and 2l's in contracts and torts.  For example, he practically invented strict liability for products liability cases. 

In any event, I've interned in the Federal District Court here in Silicon Valley.  If you want to watch some jacka$$ try to get class certification for those "victimized" by faulty disclaimers on Quicken software, or other such similarly scintillating cases, come here.  I can only imagine the CA Supreme Court has something more interesting to offer.

Budlaw

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 530
    • View Profile
Re: Calif Supreme Ct v. Fed. Dist Ct
« Reply #8 on: February 10, 2007, 08:27:33 PM »
Excuse me for offending your blatant liberal feelings. And by the way go ask your Contracts professor what he/she thinks about Traynor. I gaurantee your Contracts professor will think Traynor screwed up just as much as he got things correct.


California and New York are constantly breaking new legal ground that the rest of the country falls in line behind.


New York's pretty legit, but when you say "breaking new legal ground" for California, you should say "making up crap to further dilute the common law"

What do you mean "dilute the common law"?  The common law is an amalgamation of thousands of court decision following and building upon prior decisions.  There would be no "common law" without taking a prior decision an adding something to it.  Those decision that fall from favor then do not become part of the "common law".  The "common law" cannot be diluted; either a decision becomes part of the "common law" or it doesn't, depending on whether subsequent courts follow it, or not.  If a decision is faulty or off-base, it is either not followed, or simply overturned.

As for the California Supreme Court, I'm sure they've had their ups and downs like any court.  But it would be hard to argue that any state court, other than the N.Y. Court of Appeals, has had a greater, or more beneficial (in my opinion), influence on American jurisprudence than the CA supreme court.  It was the first American court to strike down laws against miscegenation, for example.  Hell, two or three of Justice Traynor's opinions alone must have been read by nearly all of you 1l's and 2l's in contracts and torts.  For example, he practically invented strict liability for products liability cases. 

In any event, I've interned in the Federal District Court here in Silicon Valley.  If you want to watch some jacka$$ try to get class certification for those "victimized" by faulty disclaimers on Quicken software, or other such similarly scintillating cases, come here.  I can only imagine the CA Supreme Court has something more interesting to offer.

downtown

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Calif Supreme Ct v. Fed. Dist Ct
« Reply #9 on: February 10, 2007, 11:42:29 PM »
Because you've mentioned an interest in reaching academia, I'd take the federal district court.  Though I see the merit to the "lowest court in higher-prestige arena" vs. "highest court in lower-prestige arena" debate, I think fed puts you in a better place for future advancement in academia; though I'd certainly put the question to your professors.

Also, a number of appellate-level federal court positions go to former district-level court clerks, whether through connections of the judge you're working for or simply because some judges reserve spots for someone with clerkship experience.  I think coming from a federal court background would be more beneficial in this regard.  One, you'll face less of a regional bias, especially if you're competing for a follow up clerkship outside the Ninth Circuit.  Two, you'll have better knowledge of federal procedure.  Three--and most marginal--you may work for a judge who dockets a number of cases in a certain field (veterans issues, social security, employment), and you can bill yourself as a marginal specialist.  Four, simple inside baseball; it's likely a federal appeals court judge thinks federal work is more rigorous than state.

If it's an edge at all, it's a small one; and it may well be a toss-up in terms of plain big-law placement.  However, since you're interested in academia and haven't mentioned any lifestyle disadvantage to taking the federal job, I'd give preference to fed court.