and over the wide world.
And now having arrived, I intend to lie
down,
and do you choose any posture in which you can read best.
Begin.
>I felt myself waking up inside my core > >A loving spirit that sleeps: > >And then I saw Love coming from afar > >Cheerful yes, as soon as he knows it > >saying, "You think you can honour me;" > >and with each word laughing. > >And little being with me my lord, > >watching the way it came from, > >I saw Lady Joan and Lady Bice > >coming towards the spot I was, > >one wonder past another wonder. > >And as my mind keeps telling me, > >Love said to me: "She is Spring who springs first, > >and that bears the name Love, who resembles me."
I've been a follower of the work of the Supreme Court for many years, listening in to daily oral arguments when the court is in session. I love these long-term litigants before the Supreme Court. They are moving, persuasive, lively. They care. I love them all, somehow. Each has their own peculiar pesky personality, their pros and cons, wins and losses, etc. I love Paul Clement. Consider Eric Feigin. Even D. John Sauer. But look at the history of women arguing before the Court. Lisa Blatt. Elizabeth Prelogar. I love Supreme Court History, and the breaking of the mold. I love the history itself too. Still, isn't a major issue becoming, less about life tenure and popular conventional political criticism of who is on the Court, because I don't necessarily care about reforming the makeup of Court at this spot in time (e.g., among other views I maintain, against expansion, against cameras, etc.), but I see as more important for progress and process the sheer diversity of representation of who is appearing there and how frequently they get an effective opportunity for practice, to argue? Once in a lifetime, for most. Yet, why are they these great names available so often? Ah, so you represent the government? You solicit? Good for you. You're a boutique firm who specializes in arguing in the Highest Court? Good for you. Naturally, we focus most on the flaws of the justices. Should we? Why don't we regard those other, professional litigants in the same spotlight? Sometimes, I want new voices before the Supreme Court, not new voices on the Supreme Court. So, why don't we submit superior criticisms of those who are nonetheless able to appeal to them? Is this a real issue, or am I hallucinating? To what extent? Isn't it anyone's dream to argue a case before the Supreme Court? Isn't this a democracy? Shouldn't we desire and hope–as I hope/you hope–to expand access to courts via that pure chance of a certiorari granted?