Among the court's cherished traditions is an unwritten rule: When the justices meet privately after oral argument, the newest justice minds the door. Justices Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg have served admirably in times past. Justice Stephen Breyer has held the unpaid post for the past 11 years. It's time for a change. For John Roberts, now a judge on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, elevation to the Supreme Court will be less of a change than most observers imagine. He's already been a drudge. There is a popular misconception that the high court sits on Olympus and hears only Olympian cases — abortion, free speech, eminent domain, Ten Commandments and stuff like that. Au contraire! During the term that begins in October and ends in June, the court will hear argument in about 80 cases. Ten of these will command huge public interest. Another 10 or 15 will draw a crowd to First Street. And the rest? Except for the lawyers, their clients, assorted functionaries and we ink-stained wretches of the press, the place belongs to the tourists. The newest justice will have to endure the same kind of high-toned hazing endured by those who have gone before. That is, as long as he's No. 9 he will be assigned to write the court's opinion in cases best identified as dogs. Three months after he joined the court as its most junior member, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote his first opinion. The case was Shirley M. Molzof, etc., v. United States. It involved a veteran who died of careless treatment at a veterans' hospital in Wisconsin. Thomas wrote for a unanimous court. He began with an electrifying lead: "This case requires us to determine the scope of the statutory prohibition on awards of 'punitive damages' in cases brought against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 2671-2680." Kind of grabs you, right? In December 1993, Justice Ginsburg announced her maiden opinion in John Hancock Mutual, etc., v. Harris Trust & Savings. She read her opening paragraph aloud. Everyone in the courtroom, including Clerk Bill Souter, fell fast asleep. She explained: "This case presents an issue of statutory construction — whether the fiduciary standards stated in the Employees Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) govern an insurance company's conduct in relation to certain annuity contracts. ... Our task is to determine the bounds of a statutory exclusion from 'plan asset' categorization, an exclusion Congress provided for 'guaranteed benefit policies.'" In January 1995, Justice Breyer made his debut with the court's 7-2 decision in Allied Bruce Terminix Corp. v. Dobson. He began with a rousing summation: "This case concerns the reach of Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act. That section makes enforceable a written arbitration provision in 'a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce.' Should we read this phrase broadly, extending the act's reach to the limits of Congress' Commerce Clause power? Or, do the two underscored words — 'involving' and 'evidencing' — significantly restrict the act's application?" I was sojourning in Sarasota when Justice Breyer thus wowed the courtroom crowd, and cannot report the reaction. It probably amounted to wild acclamation. Ah, well. During the coming term, when Roberts moves up from judgeship to justiceship, he will have a hand in building landmarks of the law. For example, he will join in deciding Illinois Tool Works v. Independent Ink Inc. The question is, under the Sherman Act, must a plaintiff prove as part of its affirmative case that defendant possessed market power in a relevant market for a tying product? Then the newcomer must stay awake for argument in Unitherm Food Systems Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich Inc. Here he will be called upon to decide, "To what extent, if any, may a court of appeals review sufficiency of evidence supporting civil jury verdict when party requesting review made motion for judgment as matter of law before submission to jury, but neither renewed that motion under Rule 50(b) after jury's verdict, nor moved for new trial under Rule 59?" Hey, John! Are you sure you really want this job? (Letters to Mr. Kilpatrick should be sent by e-mail to kilpatjj@aol.com.) COPYRIGHT 2005 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE This feature may not be reproduced or distributed electronically, in print or otherwise without the written permission of uclick and Universal Press Syndicate.

Rate This Article 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Select    View top rated articles

Printable Version    PDF Version    Email to a Friend    Post A Comment    View Comment    Discuss

	Popular Tags
	traditions  au contraire  nominations  Justice Stephen Breyer  public interest  December 1993  rulings  Federal Aviation Administration  Ten Commandments  Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Featured Testimonials

LawCrossing is managed in a perfect way. It doesn't need any suggestions. I have already recommended the site to my friends. Sandra

Facts

LawCrossing Fact #43: LawCrossing’s list of sister sites is growing, with new industry-specific sites in preparation to launch.

"We want to hear your thoughts. Please comment on this article (below)!" Comments

Article ID: 1045     Article Title: The Next Doorman Comment not found for this article. Comment

Facebook comments:

Enjoyed reading this article? Click here to sign up for News Wire, our weekly newsletter, and you'll receive articles just like this right in your inbox.

Enter your email address and start getting breaking law firm and legal news right now! Every Alert Alert once a day