Postcard from The Supreme Court

Filed under The Law by adam | November 13, 2002 | 0 comments

5:30am Cell phone alarm “loud” to make sure. Glass of grapefruit juice, comb, out the door.

Dark indeed.

5:50am Subway platform; just missed the last one. Apparently I’m not the only one up at this time.

Due to police problem at Fort Totten, the train will not be stopping for passengers. [Is it a police problem, or a person problem?]

6:05am Union Station. The Food Court Awakens. Everything Bagel with Cream Cheese, Large Urban Blend. Pocket some sugar for later.

Coffee and bagels, my comfort food and early-morning ritual. If you have to get up too early, pretend you’re in Sunnyside, Queens. It’s the good up-early of cosmic events, not the bad one of dentistry.

6:20am Steps of the Court. Barely a glimmer behind the Capitol; sunrise at 7am? Yes, I’ll make it in, I’m #12.

Law students, tourists, and tourist law students. Do I belong to all of these sets? Who else bothers with the highest Court in the land? Is the Law momentous and hegemonic or inconsequent and impotent? When did we learn that everything should be professed as dramatic dichotomies?

7:20am Courtyard Plaza. Line up and take your ticket.

You can use the restroom and get a cup of coffee in the Court Cafeteria after 7:30am; be sure to get back in line before 9am.

8:00am Court Cafeteria. Bacon and eggs. [I’ll pass].

I don’t suppose this is where Scalia reads the Washington Post.

8:30am Back out on the plaza. As the sun rises, it is colder, windier. The line extends across the plaza onto the sidewalk.

My laptop battery dies.

9:15am The bronze doors at the top of the stairs slide open; apparently they weigh several tons each.

I wonder how they got the doors up the stairs?

9:40am We are finally lead up the stairs, herded into the vestibule. The police officer (“Iowa”) gives us a lecture. The paramount rule is silence.
9:50am No bags, coats, writing implements, laptops, or cell-phones are allowed into the courtroom. We shuffle into the coatroom to check our affairs. The coat check is free, and the locker for electronics only $0.25 (although I lost my first quarter).

At least the Supreme Court isn’t trying to rip us off.

9:55am Courtroom. More hallowed than you can shake a finger at. The chairs are tall, but the bench is not all that high up. Certainly not as intimidating as St. Peter’s Gate.

Where are the lights? The room is bright, gentle, more than you’d expect. Perhaps the lights are invisible, shining “up”.

10:00am The Chief Justice accepts several dozen attorneys into the Supreme Court Bar. Each of them is introduced by a member of the Bar who says, “I am satisfied the applicant possesses the necessary qualifications.” They stand as they are introduced. The Clerk swears them in.

They are polite, staying for the arguments after they are sworn in.

10:10am Where are Scalia and Stevens? Tall empty chairs.

My least and most favorite Justices, respectively.

10:35am The attorney for the respondents is a man with long hair. He is unable to address hypothetical situations that he hadn’t considered. The woman next to me was wearing a Moms for Megan’s Law pin which she had to remove upon entering the Court. On the other side, a women points at her boyfriend and whispers to me, “This is so boring. I’m here because he’s affected by it.”

Later I learn that her boyfriend is listed on the (Connecticut?) Sex Offender Registry for “sexual misconduct”. He certainly didn’t seem to me to pose a threat.

10:45am Scalia and Stevens enter and take their seats. Perhaps they were having a bagel and coffee.

I suppose they’ll hear the second case which is similar to the first, so if they have any questions, they can ask them then.

10:50am Clarence Thomas is really living up to his reputation. He’s yet to ask a question, although he does like to make funny faces.

And what’s he saying to Breyer? Does he talk to Breyer because they’re friends, or simply because they are assigned adjacent seats?

11:00am The first case is over; many people leave. We get to move to more comfortable seats with a better view.

Sadly, I have no wisdom to share with you about this experience, only this brief chronology. You might read Are sex offenders uniquely dangerous? in the Washington Times for a good editorial about these two cases, which involved challenges to the Constitutionality of Megan’s Law.