Who's on First and What's on Second?
This is taken from a transcript of supreme court hearings that I heard on NPR. I'll tell a very brief background story. Mr. Ott is a lawyer defending his client who was convicted of murder. The family of the murder victim wore buttons that had a picture of the victim in a military uniform. So, before the supreme court Mr. Ott is defending the constitutionality of wearing buttons in court, when the conversation goes from being just about buttons to a deep philosophical debate about the constitution.
JUSTICE KENNEDY: What about banners? What would you do with banners?
MR. OTT: I beg your pardon?
JUSTICE KENNEDY: What would you do with banners? Would it make sense to say all banners are banned from the courtroom? I thought you would think that would make a let of sense.
MR. OTT: Banners?
JUSTICE KENNEDY: Yes. Signs, placards.
MR. OTT: Your Honor, I haven't seen a case involving banners. I imagine that -
JUSTICE KENNEDY: I think I know why. Because it affects the atmospherics of the trial.
MR. OTT: And likewise we don't see all the button cases where the buttons have been precluded.
JUSTICE SCALIA: You don't allow people to come into most courtrooms in tank shirts, and we don't allow people to, you know, to wear beany hats. Everything that is inappropriate for a courtroom is not necessarily inappropriate because it would prejudice the trial; isn't that right?
MR. OTT: That's correct, Your Honor.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Maybe that's why we don't allow banners, because a courtroom is not the place for banners.
MR. OTT: That's correct, Your Honor. Decorum should not be confused with -
JUSTICE BREYER: Absolutely right. Suppose you think in this is a federal court, which we are, that banners, posters, and buttons are a thoroughly bad idea.
Now, why? Not just because of decorum. But because they introduce an extraneous factor into the judgment of the jury.
I'll cut it off there. They go on and on about different types of buttons such as a "hang the defendant" botton, and Mr. Ott just keeps playing the role of the straight man. Go to the link below, page 16, if you can't get enough. Anyways, now you know why I'm a nihilist.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/05-785.pdf
This is taken from a transcript of supreme court hearings that I heard on NPR. I'll tell a very brief background story. Mr. Ott is a lawyer defending his client who was convicted of murder. The family of the murder victim wore buttons that had a picture of the victim in a military uniform. So, before the supreme court Mr. Ott is defending the constitutionality of wearing buttons in court, when the conversation goes from being just about buttons to a deep philosophical debate about the constitution.
JUSTICE KENNEDY: What about banners? What would you do with banners?
MR. OTT: I beg your pardon?
JUSTICE KENNEDY: What would you do with banners? Would it make sense to say all banners are banned from the courtroom? I thought you would think that would make a let of sense.
MR. OTT: Banners?
JUSTICE KENNEDY: Yes. Signs, placards.
MR. OTT: Your Honor, I haven't seen a case involving banners. I imagine that -
JUSTICE KENNEDY: I think I know why. Because it affects the atmospherics of the trial.
MR. OTT: And likewise we don't see all the button cases where the buttons have been precluded.
JUSTICE SCALIA: You don't allow people to come into most courtrooms in tank shirts, and we don't allow people to, you know, to wear beany hats. Everything that is inappropriate for a courtroom is not necessarily inappropriate because it would prejudice the trial; isn't that right?
MR. OTT: That's correct, Your Honor.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Maybe that's why we don't allow banners, because a courtroom is not the place for banners.
MR. OTT: That's correct, Your Honor. Decorum should not be confused with -
JUSTICE BREYER: Absolutely right. Suppose you think in this is a federal court, which we are, that banners, posters, and buttons are a thoroughly bad idea.
Now, why? Not just because of decorum. But because they introduce an extraneous factor into the judgment of the jury.
I'll cut it off there. They go on and on about different types of buttons such as a "hang the defendant" botton, and Mr. Ott just keeps playing the role of the straight man. Go to the link below, page 16, if you can't get enough. Anyways, now you know why I'm a nihilist.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/05-785.pdf
posted by robbo at 10:18 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home