On the Supreme Court

The courtroom itself is a most impressive and imposing room.  Tall marble columns frame the seating area, and heavy drapes dominate the backdrops.  The walls have ornate carvings high near the ceiling, and all of the bronze gates are intricately decorated.  Some day an archaeologist will have a field day with this building.  Interestingly, with all of the discussions about the Constitutionality of the Ten Commandments in schools and courtrooms, the carving immediately over the justices' chairs has, front and center, a stylized representation of the Ten Commandments on a Biblical tablet.  We were later informed that this is actually intended to represent the Bill of Rights, which also has ten items; if no one had told us, we never would have known.

Once the court was called to order, and the audience seated, Chief Justice Rehnquist wasted no time in immediately referring to Justice Ginsburg to read the Court's opinion on a case.  Three other such opinions followed, one read by the Chief Justice himself.  Following these opinions, new lawyers were submitted to the Bar of the Supreme Court, including what seemed like an entire class reunion of the Albany Law School in New York.

Sum total of the time spent in the Supreme Court itself, thirty-five minutes, including the time waiting for the Justices to arrive in the chamber.

Perhaps the most incongruous revelation of the day was the Justices' behavior in the Court.  While the gallery was sedate and reverent, and likely somewhere awed by the entire experience, the Justices clearly saw it as just another day at the office.  Justice Scalia slumped deeply in his chair; Justice Thomas continually fidgeted and rubbed his eyes, as though trying to ward off a headache brought on either by a late night or the dreadful morning commute.  Justice O'Connor looked about the audience; even Chief Justice Rehnquist found something on his fingernails more engaging than the opinion being read by Justice Stevens.  In all, it was a humbling sight that showed the gathered onlookers that the Justices of the Supreme Court, although part of a supreme American institution, were just doing their job and fulfilling the obligations placed on them by their office.

After the activities of the court were complete, everyone was ushered out, although about half of the crowd returned moments later for a canned presentation on the court itself.  This lecture was cut short, however, because one of the Justices requested the court be cleared.  (We later found out that Justice O'Connor was giving a private tour to family and friends.)  The remaining tour of the building included the East and West Conference Rooms, where the portraits of each Chief Justice hang.  We were also given a rare look into the Supreme Court library and brief speech about the history of the reading room and the story of the basketball court above the courtroom itself.

The highlight of the Supreme Court trip was undoubtedly the opportunity for a discussion with Justice Scalia.  Never one to be shy with an opinion, Justice Scalia spoke his mind in response to student questions for over 45 minutes, on topics ranging from the Michigan University affirmative action case to the problem of judicial activism, to his disappointments with the press coverage of the Supreme Court.

The most notable feature of the discussion with Justice Scalia is the impression you get of his passion for the Court. 

On Mr. Ron Sarasin

Mr. Ron Sarasin was a congressman from Connecticut, and, following an unsuccessful run at that state's governorship, a lobbyist representing the Beer Wholesalers Association.  He is currently the President of the Capitol Historical Society.  For about 90 minutes, he offered his thoughts on the roles played by lobbyists in the legislative process, and how lobbyists interact with the Congress.

Most importantly, Mr. Sarasin tried hard to dispel the idea of the lobbyist as a favor-currying suck-up distantly related to swamp muck.  "The last thing a lobbyist wants to do is to lose his credibility with a member of Congress by leading him down the wrong path," he said.  Sarasin likened the role of a lobbyist to that of an educator, helping the member of Congress see the various sides of an issue, in an attempt to show the Congressman (or Woman) the value of the lobbyist's position.

Mr. Sarasin discussed how the press tend to cover these functions.  He pointed out that the press want to simplify issues as much as possible, and to make legislative actions into a black-and-white issue where there are often many shades of gray.  "Congress never gets the simple questions," he said, "they're answered somewhere else, before they get to Congress."

The discussion of lobbying activities was very valuable to a group that includes both public relations majors and aspiring political candidates.

Lessons Learned

The Supreme Court can be complex, and an analysis of the proceedings and results can be difficult. It doesn’t help that the Justices can be reluctant to talk to the media. However, since there is no higher appeal, the rulings can be very important, and worthy of coverage.

Lobbyists depend on their reputation with their target audience: Congress. They could care less what other people think of them. It's also a time-consuming job, and can be difficult to show a lot of tangible results with any sort of timeliness.