Freedom from Blog

Don't call it a comeback . . . .

Monday, October 31, 2005

Court TV?

One reason that oral arguments in the Supreme Court should not be televised is that they are exceedingly boring. That is true even if one has an understanding of what a particular case is about. And the general public would have no idea what any particular case is about. The Court on television would be unbearably dull. I haven't heard anyone else say so. But it would be. (My guess is that many people think it unseemly to speak this truth. Not me. I revel in the unseemly.)

I went to oral arguments today, and I was actually interested in the two cases argued. The first was a price discrimination case under the Robinson-Patman Act (I can see you eyes glazing over now), the second an Eleventh Amendment state sovereign immunity versus the Bankruptcy powers of Congress. (As I like to say, when federalism and bankruptcy clash, everyone is bored.) I know a little ant-trust law, so I was interested in the first case. And the second case involves a line of significant cases going back to Seminole Tribe. (I'm going to continue typing, even though I know that no one is still reading this. You would have switched channels before now, too.) But mid-way through the second case, it was clear to me that the justices were bored, the audience was bored (the security detail's primary task seems to be to tell people that they can't close their eyes or lay their heads down in the courtroom), and even the lawyers seemed, well, bored.

But then, something interesting happened. A lightbulb in the ceiling of the courtroom exploded. POP. That was the excitement. Then, back to . . . whether the State of Virginia waived its sovereign immunity defense when VMI, a state institution, filed a proof of claim in the underlying bankruptcy case. And whether . . . the State could waive its defense where Congress has stated, in the Bankruptcy Code, that state sovereign immunity is abrogated in bankruptcy cases. And whether . . . VMI's waiver bound . . . three other state institutions in Virginia, or whether . . . said waiver was effective with respect to VMI alone.

Enough.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home