The Supreme Court

So, it was interesting. We were very first, to start at 8:50, and we went in about 8:30 or so, and went to the open window, where the Clerk,Mr. Kenyon, and two assistants were eating pastries. Oh, how I envied them! But the free breakfast at the hotel was mediocre, so I just had a glass of apple juice. Anyway, they sent us upstairs to sit on the "sweat couches" (that's what Mr. Kenyon said they called them, and for good reason). But then the marshal came and opened the courtroom, and we went in, and as soon as I walked through the doors I felt at peace.

After a few minutes an older gentleman came in and sat down behind us. I hadn't seen opposing counsel yet, and wondered if by chance he'd hired someone else to present the argument for him. I stood up and introduced myself, and he told me his name, but said he was just a visitor from out of town, from back east, an attorney out attending Supreme Court arguments to become better educated. Interesting.

At 8:45 I took my place at the table, and sat while Mr. Kenyon sent the marshal back downstairs to look for opposing counsel, and the other parties. I asked him if people ever failed to show, and said that it happened occasionally. Occasionally? I can't IMAGINE forgetting to show up for a Supreme Court argument. Anyway, the marshal came back, whispered something in Mr. Kenyon's ear, and then gave me a funny, sympathetic, hard-to-describe look. Mr. Kenyon said, "normally, people do 20 and 10, but it looks like you can just take it all." I said, why don't you set it up as 20 and 10 anyway, and we'll go from there. He did, then he buzzed the Justices, and they came out and we were off.

I only lost my voice 2 or 3 times in the next 25 minutes, although we'll have to check the audio when it's available to tell for sure. I thought most of the questions were right up my alley, ones that I had thought about, and figured they would ask me. A few at the end stumped me a bit, about whether it made it a difference if the land for the road were granted in fee simple or as simply a right to use, but I think I was clear that I didn't think it made a difference, for the purposes of this case. I sincerely hope that the Justices weren't confused by the issues the way the opposing parties were. An adverse ruling now would require the Supreme Court to rewrite the doctrine of implied easement by prior use. I think that's pretty unlikely, though not impossible.

Afterwards, Justice Horton was the last to shake my hand, and he stayed just a bit longer than the others, to tell me that I did a really good job, and he was smiling and seemed like he really meant it. He had also laughed at two of my jokes during the argument, so maybe that was part of it. Then Mr. Kenyon told me that they'd called opposing counsel's office and he was there, working away. He initially said that he just plain forgot, and then he said he'd recently had back surgery. In either case, I'd love to be a fly on the wall when he calls his clients to tell them that he forgot to go to Boise to argue their case in front of the Supreme Court. As the kids say, "Awk-ward".

I loved it. I'd love to do it again. It's so much fun when you are prepared, you know?