by Matt Barr

Court said to need more breasts

"The Supreme Court is hard-wired to suck out the drama from even the most emotionally charged conflicts," writes Dahlia Lithwick.

Whereas Anna Nicole Smith exists exclusively for psychodrama. If she isn't wearing something sparkly or saying something filthy, she might not exist at all. Which is why [Tuesday's] collision between the two worlds is so compelling. It's probably well worth the hundreds of millions of dollars in question for Anna to rein in the jubblies, dress in sober black, and sit still for an hour. She doesn't give interviews or sign autographs as she enters or exits the marble tomb, although some reporters are mowed flat in the scrum. In the first dispute today—the ethos of Anna Nicole vs. the ethos of the Supreme Court—the court is the clear winner.

It's a shame, Lithwick reports:

It seems cruel to report that Anna Nicole then stood and exited the courtroom, leaving the building by a side door and again granting no interviews. I would love to tell you that she did something, anything, to distinguish herself from the thousands of appellants who have brought their cases into these marble walls. But the court has worked its magical spell of blandness, even upon Anna, and she is just another litigant with a probate dispute today. She has stepped into the only place in America where her breasts have no power.

Is Lithwick simply blue over the loss of the best pro-choice Justice ever? Jaded by having to watch argument after argument at One First Street? Annoyed, Bob Costas-like, over having to cover a dreary, technical case Slate would never pay attention to but for Anna Nicole's boobies?

A John R. Henry on the other hand is Hooked on Court Classics:

I went and downloaded [the audio of an argument from oyez.org]. I picked one pretty much at random and listened to the pros and cons of whether executing a 17 years old was cruel and unusual.

I was hooked.

I have since listened to 10-12 cases including Kelo, the cases involving detainees in Cuba and SC, Grokster, Lessig on copyright, Barnett on medical marijuana and a few more. They are fascinating. I thought that they would be full of Latin and complex legal stuff but for the most part they are not. Even a layman like me can understand most of them.

How can raw audio of these events be so gripping to laypersons and so blah for court reporters -- er, journalists covering the Court?

Lithwick needs to rediscover the magic. If an "illiterate" former Playmate and stripper is the only thing that can bring color and life into her beat, not, say, people who are about to lose their homes, or the chronically in pain seeking relief, or filthy, murdering vermin hiding behind the age of majority to avoid execution, it's time to stop and smell whatever flowers they lay beside a "marble tomb."

Browse books from Amazon.com:
Supreme+Court