"I thought
they would, well, talk Latin or something." The visitor
had heard argument at the Supreme Court for the first
time. On another occasion, a high-school student reported
"shock" that a black-robed Justice would rock in his
high-backed chair and actually laugh out loud.
William H. Rehnquist first observed the Courts
unchanging ritual opening when he was a newly hired
law clerk in 1952, and he later described it in one
of his books as "a stirring ceremony." No other regularly
scheduled occasion guarantees a visitor " a view of
so many persons responsible for the functioning of one
of the three branches of government."
To its majestic
setting and moments of sheer ritual, the Supreme Court
brings its distinctive manner of working in publicby
listening to one lawyer at a time and asking tough questions.
Its atmosphere mingles informality with dramatic tension.
In a city of bureaucracy, it keeps the directness of
a group of nine. It cherishes its courtesies. But formality,
courtesy, and dignity are not empty custom; they are
vital to colleagues who are compelled to disagree publicly
in print, expressing their deepest convictions, but
always respecting the equally deep convictions of their
fellow Justices.
Tour guides
trained by the Curators Office convey this mood
when they talk about the Chamber to members of the public.
No, theres no jury; there are no witnesses; the
Justices dont need them because they review a
printed record of what happened in some other court.
The guide
calls attention to the sculptured marble frieze overhead;
to the right, on the south wall, great lawgivers of
the pre-Christian era; to the left, those of Christian
times. A note of pride enters her voice as she indicates
the panel over the main entrance, the one the Justices
face: Powers of EvilCorruption, Deceitoffset
by Powers of GoodSecurity, Charity, Peace, with
Justice flanked by Wisdom and Truth.