I had the impression that, with recent budget cuts and the like, such active case management was becoming a matter of necessity, lest the courts be completely overwhelmed. In your view, is that correct?
That is, of course, not to take anything away from Judge Alsup, who did a commendable job with this case. I've never seen a judge take so many expert witnesses to task like that, especially the on in Oracle's motion for JMOL.
In the federal courts, I think it is more a matter of philosophy than of economic necessity. Unlike state courts, federal courts use the single-judge calendar system, meaning that any given case is assigned to one judge for all purposes from beginning to end. This means that a judge who is proactive in managing cases will reap direct rewards in keeping his docket under control. In addition, federal judges sit for life and cannot be removed except for grounds justifying impeachment. They thus has enormous power and some run their courts almost like little fiefdoms (or at least it seems that way!). When they want to twist arms, the parties have little choice but to comply, even as they might buck and kick in the process. In any case, when high-powered lawyers and their litigant clients come into federal court and try to muscle the court and the other parties, the judge has a basic choice: do I let this go on unchecked or do I set a tone by which I control things. Eventually, the judges realized that they had to be aggressive in setting the right tone and this in time became the norm with many of them. It definitely ties in with the idea of not letting the courts be completely overwhelmed but it is not budget-driven as such but rather is motivated by necessities of reining in cases (and lawyers and parties) that would otherwise run wild to the detriment of the judge and his docket. Today, federal judges will vary on how much they use such power to curtail abuse and to promote aggressive management but the trend is very much, as you say, toward proactive management.
I'm in AZ. We have tons of budget cuts going on around here. They might not affect federal courts, though. There are enough things going on that it's hard to keep track, really, which is why I asked.
> We have tons of budget cuts going on around here.
Your second-hand source doesn't show "tons of budget cuts." It says that the 2012 budget is 20% less than the budget four years earlier but a slight increase from 2012 to 2013. (And, objective sources don't use words like "sneaky".) 20% is tough, but what should they do when revenues fall? (If you say "tax increase", I'll ask why you think that govt spending $1 is better than me spending it.)
Yes, AZ has cut funding for some things. The increase means that it has increased spending on others. While I'm sympathetic to an argument that the new priorities are wrong, you have to actually make that argument, showing that the things getting more money shouldn't. No, you don't just get to say "they cut spending on {sacred cow}".
> Your second-hand source doesn't show "tons of budget cuts." It says that the 2012 budget is 20% less than the budget four years earlier
We may have different definitions of "budget cut." That, or you object to the adjective I used. What adjective you would use if your pay was cut by 20% for four years? I suppose most people would use a four-letter one, but I could be wrong.
To be honest, though, I consider this whole thread a derail. I wanted to find out how the federal courts were doing, not to get attacked by someone stressed out over taxes.
That is, of course, not to take anything away from Judge Alsup, who did a commendable job with this case. I've never seen a judge take so many expert witnesses to task like that, especially the on in Oracle's motion for JMOL.