Many law students read of the Supreme Court justices, but how many actually see the justices in action? That's right, Justice in Action.
I heard two cases before the Court Tuesday, I'll spare you the dreadfully dull
details of thefirst case, but in the second, Georgia v. Randolph dealt with consent searches when cotenants disagree. In Randolph, a domestic dispute brings the police into the house where the wife then tells the officer that there are drugs upstairs. The husband, who happens to be a lawyer, refuses to allow the officer to search but the wife says its okay.
It's of course difficult to ascertain the position of any of the justices by their questions alone. After all, maybe they're just playing devil's advocate. It's also questionable whether some of the justices are even paying attention. Why, Thomas and Scalia seemed half-asleep. Ginsberg mentioned that she wasn't clear on all the facts and Breyer didn't read one case both parties cited (Matlock).
Overall, the experience was awe-inspiring. Stevens and O'Connor were still on the ball. Despite anyone's misapprehension, Roberts was, nonetheless, impeccable to watch.