From: Lawyernet (JHMoss@LAWYERNET.COM)
Date: Sat Apr 29 2000 - 14:33:40 CDT
Please slow down.
> What is worrisome from the press reports - first from CNN and now in the
> morning papers is that in responding to Justice O'Connor's query
> "whether a heterosexual who supports homosexual rights would be
> excluded.", BSA's attorney Davidson reportedly said that "advocating
> such views to youths would merit expulsion." (The quotes are not the
> individuals' but a quoting of the newsreport.)
Let me explain Oral Arguments before an Appellate court like the Supreme
Court. There is nothing in this world like it. You prepare for months
reviewing your written documens and your cases you relied upon, as well as
the opposing sides documents. You prepare a 45 minute argument. (You only
have 30 minutes, but just in case you can skip a section or you talk to fast
and have too much time left over.) You outline those sections that must be
stared and your grand finalle. However, at any time and in the case of the
Supreme Court, constantly you are asked questions. Hard questions. You
must stop your prepared argument, answer the questions and then decided, do
I go back to where I left off or do I jump to this point and continue on
this thread. About 1 minute after you start again another justice asks you
antoher question.
Try this example. You are explaining to your spouse how a new truck will
save you money because it gets .001% better gas mileage than your present
car. Obviously a very complicated explanation. You start your discusssion
with your spouse and after five minutes, your mother asks you based on an
average speed of 55 miles per hour how much gas the truck would consume if
it could circle the earth. You answer that question . You go back to your
wife explaining how over 100,000 miles that .001% saves you $1.00. Your dad
asks you if a black truck gets better gas mileage than a red truck. You
have no idea, BUT, you must answer the question. You go back to your wife
and go back to the 100,000 miles and .001% argument, and you son asks you if
there is enough space under the seat to put in a sub woofer that is 12" X
10" by 4.6". You vaguely remember the seat dimensions, do a quick
calculation, and with no help from anyone else, writing on your argument
notes, you answer you sons question. Now remember, you cannot say you son
cannot have the sub woofer, that was not the question, the question is would
that sub-woofer fit. You go back to you wife.
The questions are sometimes based on the context of that discussion or the
previous question. Justice O'connor's question could have been built on a
prior series of questions or out of the blue.
Now place someone's life on your answers, millions of dollars or how the BSA
is going to function after loosing 1/2 its membership. I have walked out of
oral arguments exhausted, sweaty and having no idea if I won or lost. I am
only glad it is over.
If you are interested this site:
http://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme_court/docket/aprdocket.html#99-699
has the parties briefs and amicus curiae briefs for review. (If you read
the amicus curae briefs, several organizations who sponsor units stated they
would pull out of the program if the BSA lost the suit. Based on the briefs
and a quick survey, a 50% reduction in staff and services, and mass mergers
to save some councils from bankruptcy is a real possibility.)
You cannot write the Supreme court or lobby them. It is illegal and they
just throw the mail away before it gets to anyone. Nor do they count the
mail, faxes or phone calls, they just say no. Once decided we can't change
it. It is in the hands of other people. There is no use getting mad. Just
hangin in there and wait and see.
Yours in Scouting
Jim Moss
Denver Area Council
12340 W. Alameda Pkwy., Lakewood, CO 80228-2841
303-980-5353 Fax 303-989-2316
JHMoss@Lawyernet.com JHMoss@Earthlink.net
