Mr. Shore Argues to SCOTUS
Believe it or not, I'm a sucker for lawyer TV shows, in part because they're so unrealistic they make me laugh. I'd pretty much given up on ABC's Boston Legal this season; for various reasons, I thought the show had jumped the shark. But I couldn't help noticing Tuesday's episode entitled "The Court Supreme," in which James Spader's character, Alan Shore, argues an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of a mentally challenged man facing the death penalty for raping a child.
If you have ever watched the show and have seen one of Alan's politically tinged, closing-argument rants, you can imagine what happened. (Pssssst. Hey Alan. One of the first rules of appellate practice is to save the impassioned jury argument for a jury. To that, I would add that it's generally a bad idea to insult the Justices from the lectern.) A 10-minute video clip is available on YouTube. It's worth watching not only as a reminder of what not to do at an appellate argument, but also for ABC's amazing casting of look-alikes for the High Nine.
The U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in a particularly interesting and (I think) important case today. In Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc. (06-989), the Court will decide whether contracting parties may agree to expand the grounds for vacating arbitration awards beyond those recognized under the Federal Arbitration Act. The Fifth Circuit and others have said yes—see Gateway Techs., Inc. v. MCI Telecomms. Corp., 64 F.3d 993 (5th Cir. 1995)—but the