Martha Coakley and the Supreme Court.

In this morning's Boston Globe, Frank Phillips reflects on Martha Coakley's appearance before the United States Supreme Court in November 2008.  Phillips wonders why Coakley doesn't mention the appearance in her official campaign biography, and notes that she had a fairly rough time being questioned by the nine justices.

I have a couple of thoughts on this, but unfortunately they both involve parts of my memory and I can't for the life of me locate any substantiation.

First, I swear I remember reading about Coakley's appearance last year, and that it was pretty clear at the time that it did not go well.  I don't think I would have been reading the SCOTUSblog, but I can't find any other articles from the time that commented on her performance. (As an aside, a legal blog from a Boston lawyer noted over the summer that, while Justice Kennedy was the one who grilled Coakley, he ultimately sided with her in the dissent.)  Either way, it was noted and accepted almost a year ago that she had a rough day at the Court, so there is no news here.

Second, I am absolutely, positively, 99.9% certain (although I can't at the moment locate the proof), that in his book "The Nine," Jeffrey Toobin noted that Attorneys General often perform terribly at the Supreme Court, and it means very little other than they probably shouldn't argue cases themselves.  If any of my readers can locate the page and reference, I would greatly appreciate it.

My point is that a poor performance at the Court is not a reflection of Coakley's prosecutorial (not sure if that's a real word) skills, and it's certainly not any kind of indicator of how she would perform in the Senate.

Any lawyers care to weigh in?