Legal Commentary

Something I thought of but did not mention in my post about how SCOTUS arguments are increasingly dominated by justices' questions and Justice Kagan's suggestion that oral argument is the chance for the justices to speak (to the parties and to one another): While I do not disagree with her point, there feels like a show-off quality to that attitude. Oral argument is the only part of the job that the justices do in public and they are, to some extent, "performing." And that performative idea is ever-increasing as more attention gets paid to oral arguments. Not that there is anything wrong with that. But it seems self-aggrandizing. It also makes the institutuional opposition to cameras in the courtroom more puzzling. Wouldn't they want a broader audience? Or are they saving themselves from themselves--the presence of the cameras would cause the justices themselves (not the attorneys) to amp-up that performance for the cameras.

A comenter then offers the following:

I think about it as analogous to being a professor. Many of us like it when our students engage with the material and interact with us--at least in class if not in our offices or at all hours via email. We do hold class for the students, but it's partially our chance to interact with a captive audience about stuff we find really interesting.

I agree with the analogy and I had the same thought as I was writing the original post: Class is for us. It is where we get to hold forth on what we enjoy and what we like to talk about, often trying out new ideas or new ways of approaching or talking about the material. Indeed, that is (in part) why many of us enter the academy in the first place--an unlimited opportunity to talk about what we love. And most of us do it in the form of a colloquy/interrogation similar to how justices conduct oral argument, where students react and respond to us and we are driving the train (at least in the traditional/common way of conducting a law school class). And everyone is left wondering whether the event is actually doing what it is supposed to be doing--elaborating on briefs or imparting substantive knowledge.

Of course, I immediately recoiled from that idea, for fear the Carnegie Report Cops would come beating down my door. Wouldn't they say that everything wrong with legal education is captured in the idea that the classroom is about the professor and not entirely about the students and how best they learn and the practical experience they need to become practicing lawyers? Wouldn't they say that truly good and experiential legal learning--what law students really need--is lost while professors "show off" for their students?