Oral Arguments

If our faithful readers missed Slate‘s coverage of the Supreme Court’s oral arguments, you are all the poorer for it. The Court heard some great cases, and Senior Editor Dahlia Lithwick did a fine job not just with the content of the arguments, but with the snappy banter at the bench. Take the Virginia v. Black cross-burning case:

Perhaps it’s because Chief Justice William Rehnquist is still home recuperating from knee surgery and Justice John Paul Stevens presides with a lighter touch, but everyone seems to be acting out like they would with a substitute teacher.

…and she’s not exaggerating. The Supremes can be really funny. The Lawrence v. Texas sodomy case also has some great highlights:

In response to a question from Justice Anthony Kennedy as to whether Bowers is still good law, Rosenthal replies that mores have changed and that “physical homosexual intimacy is now more acceptable.” Since he suddenly seems to be arguing the wrong side of the case, an astonished Scalia steps in to say, “You think there is public approval of homosexuality?”

Rosenthal catches his pass, then runs the wrong way down the field: “There is approval of homosexuality. But not of homosexual activity.” Scalia wonders how there can be such widespread “approval” if Congress still refuses to add homosexuals to classes of citizens protected by the civil rights laws. “You’re saying there’s no disapproval of homosexual acts. But you can’t … say that,” he sputters.

There is nowhere near enough good coverage of the SCOTUS, and it’s a shame. These are smart people, working out hugely important issues — and despite, or perhaps because of the black robes and specialized vocabulary, they can be funny. It takes good writing to bring this out, so full marks to Lithwick and Slate.