Once again, I found myself at the podium facing 5 black robed justices of the state's Supreme Court, who sat in their high backed chairs, their stoic features wearing that usual hard-to-read expression.
I needed to greet them before launching into my prepared speech, but I did not remember their names.
Truth be told, I haven't met anyone who's worse than me in terms of remembering people's names. My co-workers greet each other in the morning by saying, "Good Morning, (person’s name)". I always just say "Good Morning". My greetings come out truncated because I, so often, just don't remember my co-workers' names.
Fortunately, I did not have to greet the justices by their names. I just started by saying:"Good Morning your honors! My name is ….” You see, I only had to remember my own name there, which, I’m happy to report, is something I’ve always been able to manage.
The case isn't terribly complicated. The state reimburses insurance companies who pay into a special fund for certain benefits they pay to their insureds. The appellant in this case, a town, wants to be reimbursed by the state, too, but towns do not pay into that special fund.
So I argued on behalf of the state to the court: “The function of the state, through the special fund, is no different from that of insurance companies who cover the risks of their insureds in exchange for payment of premiums. Here, the payment by the insurance companies into the special fund is like premium. The town is not entitled to the claimed reimbursements because it does not pay premium.”
It all sounds very plausible, doesn't it? The problem is that not too long before, I had stood before this same court and argued in a different case that the state was not an insurer.
In that other case, the state transfers a case to an insurance company. The defendant in the case claims, however, that it, by law, does not pay insurance companies. The insurance company then returns the case to the state so the state can get paid by that defendant. The defendant claims that the state itself is also an insurance company.
I had won that case and got the defendant to pay the state by arguing, successfully, that the state was not an insurance company. Here in this case, I seemed to be arguing the opposite that the state was functioning like an insurance company.
I was a little worried that one of the justices might stop me and remind me of my argument in that previous case, which would call for a lengthy explanation on my part. All justices are not experts in that specific realm of law and long explanations may be confusing to them. So I quickly followed my main argument with the finishing comment: “We are a state. Unlike Uncle Sam, we don’t have a money-printing machine. If parties like the town, who do not pay into the special fund, also get reimbursed by the state, the state would go bankrupt.”
It was then the appellant's turn for rebuttal. Before he could utter a word, though, one of the justices asked him: “Is it true you do not pay into the fund?” Then and there, I knew I had won.
So, the state is not an insurance company. Nevertheless, it can function like an insurance company. You see the difference? :)
It is amazing how different parts of our brain perform
different functions. We know, for example, the right fusiform gyrus, a fold in the brain, coordinates the neural systems that control facial perception and memory, and abnormalities in it cause face blindness. It has now been shown that the anterior temporal lobe is critically involved in the retrieval of people's names. There is hope that some day medical science will come up with a way to help people like you and me to better remember people's names.
有个一回生二回熟的过程。说到模拟法庭，也不光是学校有。即便工作以后，如果有案子要去上诉法院或最高法院辩论，之前单位少不了会组织模拟法庭，先在自己内部演练一番，挖空心思把辩论时可能遇到的问题过一遍。到了辩论的时候，自己人也会到场，一面给同事鼓劲，一面记下需要改进的地方，事后给同事以提醒。Practice makes perfect. :)
Once again, I found myself at the podium facing 5 black robed justices of the state's Supreme Court, who sat in their high backed chairs, their stoic features wearing that usual hard-to-read expression.
I needed to greet them before launching into my prepared speech, but I did not remember their names.
Truth be told, I haven't met anyone who's worse than me in terms of remembering people's names. My co-workers greet each other in the morning by saying, "Good Morning, (person’s name)". I always just say "Good Morning". My greetings come out truncated because I, so often, just don't remember my co-workers' names.
Fortunately, I did not have to greet the justices by their names. I just started by saying:"Good Morning your honors! My name is ….” You see, I only had to remember my own name there, which, I’m happy to report, is something I’ve always been able to manage.
The case isn't terribly complicated. The state reimburses insurance companies who pay into a special fund for certain benefits they pay to their insureds. The appellant in this case, a town, wants to be reimbursed by the state, too, but towns do not pay into that special fund.
So I argued on behalf of the state to the court: “The function of the state, through the special fund, is no different from that of insurance companies who cover the risks of their insureds in exchange for payment of premiums. Here, the payment by the insurance companies into the special fund is like premium. The town is not entitled to the claimed reimbursements because it does not pay premium.”
It all sounds very plausible, doesn't it? The problem is that not too long before, I had stood before this same court and argued in a different case that the state was not an insurer.
In that other case, the state transfers a case to an insurance company. The defendant in the case claims, however, that it, by law, does not pay insurance companies. The insurance company then returns the case to the state so the state can get paid by that defendant. The defendant claims that the state itself is also an insurance company.
I had won that case and got the defendant to pay the state by arguing, successfully, that the state was not an insurance company. Here in this case, I seemed to be arguing the opposite that the state was functioning like an insurance company.
I was a little worried that one of the justices might stop me and remind me of my argument in that previous case, which would call for a lengthy explanation on my part. All justices are not experts in that specific realm of law and long explanations may be confusing to them. So I quickly followed my main argument with the finishing comment: “We are a state. Unlike Uncle Sam, we don’t have a money-printing machine. If parties like the town, who do not pay into the special fund, also get reimbursed by the state, the state would go bankrupt.”
It was then the appellant's turn for rebuttal. Before he could utter a word, though, one of the justices asked him: “Is it true you do not pay into the fund?” Then and there, I knew I had won.
So, the state is not an insurance company. Nevertheless, it can function like an insurance company. You see the difference? :)
boring as can be. :)
信大师的写作很地道，看不出中式英语的痕迹。
different functions. We know, for example, the right fusiform gyrus, a fold in the brain, coordinates the neural systems that control facial perception and memory, and abnormalities in it cause face blindness. It has now been shown that the anterior temporal lobe is critically involved in the retrieval of people's names. There is hope that some day medical science will come up with a way to help people like you and me to better remember people's names.
Psychologist finds 'shocking' impact on name recall -- ScienceDaily
反驳时间有限，被大法官一问，就没有机会讲了。不过最高法院的辩论大家都有充分准备，相互知根知底，特别是事先都向法院呈送了观点陈述，双方的观点已经在那里交过锋了。即便对方有时间讲，其论点也已经在我方的观点陈述中反驳过。
program is run by the states, although the U.S. Department of Labor oversees the system. 但很可能会有些州把管理的活包给 TPA。
有个一回生二回熟的过程。说到模拟法庭，也不光是学校有。即便工作以后，如果有案子要去上诉法院或最高法院辩论，之前单位少不了会组织模拟法庭，先在自己内部演练一番，挖空心思把辩论时可能遇到的问题过一遍。到了辩论的时候，自己人也会到场，一面给同事鼓劲，一面记下需要改进的地方，事后给同事以提醒。Practice makes perfect. :)