“Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.” (Edmund Burke, Bristol, 1774)

On November 30, 2005, I had the high honor and privilege of traveling to Washington, D.C. to support the efforts of the Attorney General of New Hampshire as she presented a case before the Supreme Court of the United States. The following comments are not about the case, but are this observer’s impressions and reflections upon his visit to these exalted chambers.

As one approaches the white marble temple set on a hill overlooking both the Capitol Building and the distant White House, one is greeted by the immortal and oft-forgotten words “Equal Justice Under Law.”  The entire building, from the moment one enters and views the larger-than-life statue of John Marshall reclining, is seemingly designed to impress the visitor with the grandeur, supremacy, power and prestige of the Court, as if the third branch of government were the weakest and the building an attempt to show that it is actually the strongest and most powerful. Even the Aides to the Marshal used their position to push, shove and intimidate the visitor into kowtowing before the power of the Court.

Consider how we entered the courthouse building. Regardless of rank or position, it seemed as if we were merely endured, like unwelcome relatives during the holidays. Each group of ten visitors or so had an Aide to the Marshal of the Supreme Court of the United States assigned to them to keep order as they were escorted to the courtroom. I found that quite curious, for the visitors being shuttled around were mostly elected officials in their own right or senior government officials from my state. It was almost as if there were a specific effort to demonstrate by bureaucratic action that you, the observer, were unimportant and that the only “valuable” commodities in the chamber were the Members of the Court.

Note the title of the security guard/bailiff:  “Aide to the Marshal of the Supreme Court of the United States.” That full title was used nearly every time a reference was made to one of the very military-like (in bearing and demeanor) men, dressed in blue blazers and outfitted with earpieces and (presumably) concealed weapons. In addition to the need for security, I sensed that their presence and demeanor was a not-so-subtle method of intimidating the observers.

The Chamber itself was designed to make the petitioners feel as if they were insignificant before the all-powerful Oz. The comparison to the Wizard of Oz is apt. What takes place here should not be smoke and mirrors, but too often is perceived as just that. The chamber is small, about 40 feet by 40 feet. Massive Corinthian-capped marble columns that seemed to be at least 50 feet tall surrounded the entire seating area. The massive, imposing columns made all in the room seem insignificant before the honorable bench. I had no tape measure, but felt that the chairs and benches were cut so that one was “sitting short” before the bench. At the front of the room, a large maroon curtain hung behind the columns. A clock with Roman numerals hung in the center as a constant reminder to the petitioners that their time before the bench was strictly limited.

The bench itself dominated the raised dais upon which it sat. It was curved slightly so as to allow each member to see the others. The members of the Court appeared to pay attention to the statements and answers offered by the petitioners and respondents as the two sides were called to present their cases. At times, however, aides, appearing as if by magic from behind the curtain, presented papers to members of the Court as the argument was ongoing. At other times, the justices shuffled through whatever papers they had at their places on the bench. The height of the dais and the bench was such that all in the chamber were forced to look up, as if in supplication, to the members. I do not know who designed the chamber, but it was designed to intimidate and the design was successful.

Once the questioning of the advocates began, I was transported from Oz to the plains of the Serengeti as the vultures came to feast. The questions were like so many sharp talons into the heart (or perceived heart) of the issue facing the Court. I have endured the Socratic method of inquiry in college; it is an effective method — although somewhat challenging and too often demeaning — of getting answers to questions. I was struck, however, by the near-vicious presentation of the questions in their tone, frequency, rapidity, focus and impact. General Ayotte responded to the ferocious attack by certain justices commonly placed in the camp opposite the state’s position. Only when the presentation was handed off to the Solicitor General of the United States did the attack slacken.

The Solicitor General of the United States of America was more experienced than General Ayotte in presenting before the august body, because it is essentially his full-time job. He was dressed, unlike any of the others present, in a black morning coat with plain black buttons on the tails. 

From our position in the chamber, we witnessed a reportedly rare exchange between a petitioner and a justice. At one point Mr. Justice Breyer began a question as the Solicitor General was speaking.  Others who have presented before the Supreme Court told us that the general rule is that the person (respondent or petitioner) stops in mid-sentence to answer the question being posed. A member of the Supreme Court Bar, listening in the separate lawyers’ gallery, later told us there was an audible gasp as the Solicitor General spoke over Justice Breyer to finish his point before acknowledging the Justice’s question. Because there are no cameras allowed in the chamber, the rather angry expression of Justice Breyer was not seen by reporters outside the chamber.

Interestingly, and not widely reported in the news media, was that the justices one would associate with the other side of the issue (Justices Ginsberg, O’Connor and Breyer) asked just as pointed, vicious, and probing questions of the respondent as they did of General Ayotte. At one point, Justice Ginsberg insisted of [Planned Parenthood attorney Jennifer Galven] “Answer my question!” Again, being present allowed us to see the look of dissatisfaction on the face of Justice Ginsberg.

Having the opportunity to observe, first hand, the working of the Supreme Court was revealing. The experience gave me a new understanding of the process which any number of petitioners must face when “taking a case” to the Supreme Court. The preparation, the diligence, and the knowledge that the petitioner must have to show the “nine in black,” the strengths and weakness of a case is immense. The composure shown by General Ayotte to stand in the midst of the awe-inspiring and intimidating grandeur of a Romanesque temple to justice is to be applauded and appreciated by all of the citizens of New Hampshire whom she serves as our Attorney General.  [She should be] congratulated.

We also learned that regardless of which side of the issue the observers found themselves on, the method of aggressive questioning did not reveal a bias by any of the justices. Rather it appeared to this observer that all of the justices were sincere and earnest in the process. They were seeking truly equal justice under law for all who appealed to the Court.

Jordan G. Ulery, a member of the New Hampshire League of Investigators, is also a member of the 159th New Hampshire General Court.

Home | About the Bar | For Members | For the Public | Legal Links | Publications | Online Store
Lawyer Referral Service | Law-Related Education | NHBA•CLE | NHBA Insurance Agency | NHMCLE
Search | Calendar

New Hampshire Bar Association
2 Pillsbury Street, Suite 300, Concord NH 03301
phone: (603) 224-6942 fax: (603) 224-2910
email: NHBAinfo@nhbar.org
© NH Bar Association Disclaimer