I had a thought this morning whilst cutting myself shaving: A big issue in politics and law these days is so-called "legislating from the Bench". Now, this is interesting. SOME state court systems, such as New Mexico and Texas, have a two level appellate system, Court of Appeals and Supreme Court. These state Supreme Courts, like the U.S. Supreme Court, usually have the power to select which cases they will hear. Other states, like Wyoming and Vermont (?) have a SINGLE appellate level, usually the state Supreme Court. In those cases, the Supreme Court must accept and decide ALL appeals. The effect is, in states with two levels, the Supreme Court has time and resources to deliberate and theorize whilst in the single level states, I suggest, the press of business makes this impossible. Soooo...single level states should develope less "bench legislation" than double level states. Any kind of research effort would require people skilled in the techniques of academic research AND skilled as lawyers. It would also require a LOT of funding. A Doctor (as opposed to a J.D.) would know HOW to identify funding sources, HOW to draft the research and funding proposals and HOW to publish the results. A Doctor would also carry the credibility AS a professional researcher to attract funding, I imagine. We NEED dissertation doctorates in law in this country!
You mention Wyoming and Vermont when listing single level appellate states. Both of those places has what, half amillion residents? Perhaps they only have one level because their low populations mean they're getting less business, and it's little enough that they can handle it without an intervening layer? -=Steve=-
That would make sense except that New Mexico, with less than two million residents, ALSO has a two tier appellate system. It is possible to compare apples to apples, in other words. You are not wrong, BTW. The standard argument for an intermediate Court of Appeals is "workload". That argument is a fallacy, though, on two grounds: 1) because those cases that the Supreme Court hears end up being heard TWICE, creating MORE work. And 2) the vast majority of appeals still end up getting only ONE review, in the (badly overworked) Court of Appeals. BTW, I could be wrong in my selection of examples. Vermont and Wyoming MIGHT be two tier states; my memory isn't what it used to be!
