jewishbuddha dot org

« Satisfaction is a Warm Cookie | Main | Delicious Irony »

October 15, 2002

I Finally Got My Day In Court

I ended up having no classes today because of some kind of scheduling issue between the registrar and my professor. I knew it would be my only chance to get to the Supreme Court again this semester without having to miss class, so Jake and I made plans to go hear the arguments.

Not Again!
The cases being argued today were much lower profile than Eldred, so we planned to meet in front of the Court at 8. I had a paper due this morning at 10, so I was going to print it out, slide it under the Professor's door as she had suggested, and leave campus around 7:40. Forces conspired against me getting to court on time yet again. By the time I finished my paper last night, the library was closed. I don't have a printer of my own, so I figured I'd go around 7:30 and be fine. Problem: library doesn't open until 8:00. Wait. Print. Drop. Hurry. I got to the Supreme Court at about 8:25. Ticket 53. My heart sank. I didn't really doubt I'd get in, but just the thought of it was crushing.

Into The Court
Jake had number 39, so when they started letting people in, I walked back in the line to find my exact spot. I was shocked to find that people weren't even lined up in order. It was a different world than the previous week. I got in with the first group. Through a security check, where they searched my bag. Checked the bag. Into the Court. We got seats right in the center in the very back, with a a decent view.

Understated?
Last week, I said that the courtroom was understated. I had more time to take it in this time and my impression is a little different. It's a grand room in every sense of the word. It conveys importance. What is understated is the bench itself. It is only a few feet off the ground. When the Justices are seated and the advocate standing, there is a gap of just a foot or two in height. Their furniture is fairly plain. But the surroundings are intense. The room has an extraordinarily high ceiling, with enormous marble columns on the perimeter (two deep on each side). Around the ceiling there are ornate sculptures and detailed decorations. The accoustics are such that the Justices sound like they are speaking from on high. You can't tell from listening where the Justice speaking actually is, so you have to recognize their voices or scan their faces. The seats for the general public are small and terribly uncomfortable.

"Oyez, Oyez, Oyez!"
Court begins with a the formal entrance of the Justices and calling the session to order. The first item of business was swearing in new members of the Supreme Court Bar, which took about 5 minutes. After that, they went straight into Petitioner's arguments in the matter of Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson. The question before the court was whether the All Writs Act allowed the removal of a case from state court to federal court if the ruling in the state court case could interfere with a complex federal case. Or something along those lines. Having not studied civil procedure yet, it was kind of a blur. The attorney for Syngenta was unprepared and got torn apart by the Court. Anyone who thought Professor Lessig was anything less than excellent last week should have attended today for a lesson in what poor advocacy is. I'm not in a position to evaluate the quality of the arguments or his skills as an attorney, and I don't presume to do so. However, the court continually slugged him and it appeared to me as an obeserver that he had no answers. Justice Ginsburg tossed him a nice easy one to hit out of the park and he seemed to miss it entirely. I wanted to think that he was just a small-potatoes local counsel working the case because it was important and that he was just caught off guard by the anxiety of appearing before the Supreme Court. But it seemed as though he had difficulty answering basic questions about the case. The case was brought under the All Writs Act, so one Justice (I think it was Chief Justice Rehnquist) asked what writ is involved in removing a case from state to federal jurisdiction. He didn't have an answer. Justice Kennedy helped a bit by offering a comparison between that change in jurisdiction and a writ of certiorari, which is when one court (such as the Supreme Court) takes a case from a lower court. But even with help from Kennedy, the advocate couldn't make much headway. At one point, when questioning why he and his clients chose to take the approach they did, one of the Justices made a joke about a potential malpractice case. Not a good sign. Eventually, Chief Justice Rehnquist invited counsel to reserve the remainder of his time for rebuttal, which he did wisely agreed to do. Counsel for the Respondent was much more prepared, both in terms of legal questions and how to present himself. The rest of the argument was unremarkable (other than the simple fact that I was sitting in the United States Supreme Court).

Thankfully, after the first case was finished, we were able to move up to some empty seats in the reserved section which were much more comfortable. We ended up in the front row of that section, immediately behind the members of the Supreme Court Bar, with a perfect view of all nine Justices.

The second case was Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine. The question was whether the 1971 Federal Boat Safety Act or an unpublished internal memo from the Coast Guard constituted regulation that would preempt a common law claim in state court. I observed a moot of Petitioner's arguments last week and find them to be fairly compelling. Sprietsma's wife died when she fell over the back of a motor boat and was caught in the propeller. He is suing the manufacturer of the boat for not installing a propeller guard. However, there is no regulation requiring a propeller guard, and some research shows that they are very dangerous in and of themselves. This case was different from the others because in addition to the Petitioner and Respondent, both of whom were private parties, the United States Government also made an argument on the side of the Petitioner. All of the advocates seemed well prepared and were confident (and competent) speakers. Though I didn't entirely get the Government's argument, I understood almost everything and enjoyed it.

Nine Individuals
There has been a lot of commentary recently about the fact that the current Court has been together without change for eight years, longer than almost any Supreme Court in history, and certainly longer than any recent Court. They have reached a level of comfort with each other and their positions. I really enjoyed watching them in action. Justice Scalia, whether you agree with his politics or not, is a brilliant man and a sharp wit. Justice Ginsburg, in both of the cases I observed today, seemed to have really prepared for the arguments, knowing minute details of the cases cited as precedent and pressing the advocates on the precision of their arguments. Justice Thomas didn't say a word, except in a side conversation with Justice Breyer. He spent a good portion of the time leaning back and admiring the art on the ceiling. I would not suggest testing Chief Justice Rehnquist's patience. I had heard of him scolding attorneys who don't answer "yes" or "no" questions directly, and I saw him do it at least once today.

I could go on. I hope to go back again soon, my courses permitting. They are phenomenal personalities and are interesting to watch, even when the subject matter is less than inspiring in and of iteself. Everything I'm reading for class seems much more real now that I've been to the Court.

Posted by buddha at October 15, 2002 04:13 PM

Comments

Posted by: Anonymous at October 16, 2002 05:17 AM

Posted by: dan at October 16, 2002 10:04 AM

Post a comment