A week ago today, I had the privilege of attending oral argument at the Supreme Court and hearing two very interesting cases. I was there for the second case, State Farm v. Campbell, which will be very relevant to a petition for certiorari that we have pending in the Supreme Court regarding the issue of constitutionality of some kinds of punitive damages awards. Lucky for me, the first case -- Virginia v. Black -- was absolutely fascinating.
The legal issue was interesting, which always helps. The question was whether Virginia's anti-cross burning statute violates the First Amendment. The statute tries to get around the prohibition on proscribing content-related speech by only outlawing cross burning when it is done with "intent to intimidate." The statute then goes on to say that "intent to intimidate" may be presumed from the fact that the cross was burned in public view.
Better yet, the argument was outstanding. The attorneys all really knew their stuff, and they were very adroit at answering questions. In particular, the attorney representing the KKK just wowed me.
But the best part was the fact that Justice Thomas actually SPOKE. The man has a reputation for not asking questions at argument, and considers it a point of pride that he doesn't need to ask questions. Here, he didn't really ask a question. He fed the Federal Government's attorney a list of reasons why cross burning in particular is a uniquely threatening act, dating back 100 years. When the attorney didn't pick up on the gift he was being given right away, Thomas AGAIN repeated his argument. With the bow now on the package, the Government attorney finally wisely said that yes, what Justice Thomas said was exactly what he meant.
A reserved front-row seat at a Supreme Court oral argument that was well-argued and that all of the Justices, even Thomas, seemed very engaged in: For a lawyer, it just doesn't get any better than that. Geeky, but true.
Posted by Dineen at December 18, 2002 12:38 PM | TrackBackFirst, Thomas SPOKE? That says something. Looking at the subject matter, the significance is perhaps dimmed *a bit*, but still, he spoke.
as for the augument. The statute wording seems to leave a lot of room for interpretation. If cross-burning were defined as "inherently intimidating" it would be a fairly easy call and one wouldn't need to be the second coming of einstein to get off the fence. However, "intent to intimidate"? Hmmm. and it's *presumed* only if in public view? The sc case history just on the def of "public view" is murky at best. and "intent"..... judged by whose standards?
I would have enjoyed hearing the arguments. :) Esp. the atty for the kkk. Man. You'd have to pay me BIG BUCS to represent a low profile client like that in "public view", I tell ya.
Neat website. :) ben
Posted by: benj. burch esq on December 21, 2002 09:04 PM