I spoke with Grampy yesterday. He will undergo surgery for his aortic aneurysm on March 15. He is concerned of course and has requested that we all take part in a family fast on Sunday, March 12. Please make a note on your calendar and keep him in your prayers.
Also, Grampy's birthday is on March 14. He would love to hear from everyone.
Friday, February 24, 2006
Supreme Court Argument
Arguing a case in the U.S. Supreme Court is a singular event. It is humbling and awe-inspiring. I am one of those who still feels a thrill whenever I see the flag flying or I hear the National Anthem, so it was deeply moving to me to stand at the podium in front of the Nation's highest court. From that vantage point one sees the justices eye-to-eye. This can be intimidating, but I felt more like a colleague discussing the finer points of the law than a supplicant relying on the mercy of the court.
The prepartions for this event were substantial. I pondered the case for months and could think of nothing else in the final weeks and days. Potential arguments and questions dominated my thoughts. Toward the end, I could neither eat nor sleep. I wrote four briefs for the case and participated in three moot courts. I held many impromptu strategy sessions and read many briefs, argument transcripts, and law review articles. I was trying to learn everything I could about the Clean Water Act so as to be prepared for any question. In the end, I had a list of about 200 questions that I thought could be asked. At oral argument I was surprised by only one question from Chief Justice Roberts about defining tributaries.
On argument day, I arrived at the court about 8:00am. For the next hour, I sat in the court cafeteria with Mike Grob, the president of Pacific Legal Foundation. I was preoccupied with thoughts about the argument so Mike was kind enough to just sit with me in silence. Around 9:00am, we were called to the lawyers' lounge on the second floor of the building where the courtroom is located. We were given a short orientation by the Clerk of the Court which included reminders of Supreme Court protocol: Always refer to the Chief Justice as Mr. Chief Justice, don't use the wrong name when addressing the justices, wait to be recognized before starting your argument, answer questions "yes" or "no" if possible, don't talk over the justices, etc. Then, we were issued passes and directed to the courtroom where we assumed our positions at the counsel tables. The Solicitor General always sits at the right side table, so we were seated at the left side table. Mike Grob was my co-counsel and sat at the table. Mr. Stoepker represented the Carabells and he sat with his co-counsel to my left. Up until that time I was extremely nervous and wondered if I was going to make it through. I had visions of blanking out during questioning and losing all coherence. But,when I sat at the table a few minutes before the justices arrived, I felt a pleasant calm settle over me and was anxious to begin.
All nine robe-clad justices walked in and everyone stood. After the traditional hail of "God save this honorable court," the Chief Justice called us to order. Two case decisions were announced and a number of new attorneys were admitted to the bar. Then, my case was called: Rapanos v. United States. I rose and addressed the court: "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court. This case is about agency overreaching...." As expected, I was allowed a one-paragraph opening statement before the questions started. When they started, they did not end until my time was up. All the justices asked questions wih the exception of Justice Thomas who has a reputation for keeping his thoughts to himself. I received Justice Alito's very first question since his swearing in. After 15 minutes, I reserved the remainder of my time (5 minutes) for rebuttle. This proved fortuitous because the Solicitor General based his arguments on misrepresentations of the law and the record which I was required to address at the end. All in all, the questioning was intense on both sides. It was actually fun. When our time was up, we were dismissed and I proceeded to the courthouse steps with my client for a press conference.
It was strange standing in front of a whole rack of microphones and cameras with flashes going off and reporters shouting questions and instructions. You see this on TV all the time but never expect to be doing it yourself. Here are few pictures of me and Mr. Rapanos at the press conference. With his sunglasses on, Mr. Rapanos looks like a Mafia don, but he is a very nice fellow.
After the press conference, I was taken to FoxNews for a TV interview which aired as a special report on the Brit Hume Show. Immediately after that I was taken to the Georgetown University Law Center where I participated on a panel discussion for an hour and a half on the cases heard that day. Fortunately, I did not know the event was being aired live on C-Span. Had I known, I would have been much less relaxed. As it was, I had a good time bantering.
When I concluded the panel discussion, I was driven to the airport to catch a plane to Toledo, Ohio. The next day I gave a lecture to the Toledo University Law School about my Supreme Court experience. Coincidentally, my brother lives in Toledo who I had not seen for many years. It was great getting reacquainted with Steve and Ginny. When I completed the lecture, I could relax for the first time in 5 months.
I feel privileged to have argued this case in the Supreme Court--a case with such far-reaching consequences. This case will either uphold our constitutional foundation or chip away the edges. However the case is decided, I have played a small role in shaping the future of the country. I will forever treasure the experience.
There is a scripture which describes what this case is about. The words in Doctrine and Covenants 134:1-2 give me some hope for a favorable outcome and some pride in what I do.
We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.
We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.
I wish I could have spent more time with everyone in DC. Thanks for your love, support and prayers. In a few months, we will have a decision and know what we have wrought.
The prepartions for this event were substantial. I pondered the case for months and could think of nothing else in the final weeks and days. Potential arguments and questions dominated my thoughts. Toward the end, I could neither eat nor sleep. I wrote four briefs for the case and participated in three moot courts. I held many impromptu strategy sessions and read many briefs, argument transcripts, and law review articles. I was trying to learn everything I could about the Clean Water Act so as to be prepared for any question. In the end, I had a list of about 200 questions that I thought could be asked. At oral argument I was surprised by only one question from Chief Justice Roberts about defining tributaries.
On argument day, I arrived at the court about 8:00am. For the next hour, I sat in the court cafeteria with Mike Grob, the president of Pacific Legal Foundation. I was preoccupied with thoughts about the argument so Mike was kind enough to just sit with me in silence. Around 9:00am, we were called to the lawyers' lounge on the second floor of the building where the courtroom is located. We were given a short orientation by the Clerk of the Court which included reminders of Supreme Court protocol: Always refer to the Chief Justice as Mr. Chief Justice, don't use the wrong name when addressing the justices, wait to be recognized before starting your argument, answer questions "yes" or "no" if possible, don't talk over the justices, etc. Then, we were issued passes and directed to the courtroom where we assumed our positions at the counsel tables. The Solicitor General always sits at the right side table, so we were seated at the left side table. Mike Grob was my co-counsel and sat at the table. Mr. Stoepker represented the Carabells and he sat with his co-counsel to my left. Up until that time I was extremely nervous and wondered if I was going to make it through. I had visions of blanking out during questioning and losing all coherence. But,when I sat at the table a few minutes before the justices arrived, I felt a pleasant calm settle over me and was anxious to begin.
All nine robe-clad justices walked in and everyone stood. After the traditional hail of "God save this honorable court," the Chief Justice called us to order. Two case decisions were announced and a number of new attorneys were admitted to the bar. Then, my case was called: Rapanos v. United States. I rose and addressed the court: "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court. This case is about agency overreaching...." As expected, I was allowed a one-paragraph opening statement before the questions started. When they started, they did not end until my time was up. All the justices asked questions wih the exception of Justice Thomas who has a reputation for keeping his thoughts to himself. I received Justice Alito's very first question since his swearing in. After 15 minutes, I reserved the remainder of my time (5 minutes) for rebuttle. This proved fortuitous because the Solicitor General based his arguments on misrepresentations of the law and the record which I was required to address at the end. All in all, the questioning was intense on both sides. It was actually fun. When our time was up, we were dismissed and I proceeded to the courthouse steps with my client for a press conference.
It was strange standing in front of a whole rack of microphones and cameras with flashes going off and reporters shouting questions and instructions. You see this on TV all the time but never expect to be doing it yourself. Here are few pictures of me and Mr. Rapanos at the press conference. With his sunglasses on, Mr. Rapanos looks like a Mafia don, but he is a very nice fellow.
After the press conference, I was taken to FoxNews for a TV interview which aired as a special report on the Brit Hume Show. Immediately after that I was taken to the Georgetown University Law Center where I participated on a panel discussion for an hour and a half on the cases heard that day. Fortunately, I did not know the event was being aired live on C-Span. Had I known, I would have been much less relaxed. As it was, I had a good time bantering.
When I concluded the panel discussion, I was driven to the airport to catch a plane to Toledo, Ohio. The next day I gave a lecture to the Toledo University Law School about my Supreme Court experience. Coincidentally, my brother lives in Toledo who I had not seen for many years. It was great getting reacquainted with Steve and Ginny. When I completed the lecture, I could relax for the first time in 5 months.
I feel privileged to have argued this case in the Supreme Court--a case with such far-reaching consequences. This case will either uphold our constitutional foundation or chip away the edges. However the case is decided, I have played a small role in shaping the future of the country. I will forever treasure the experience.
There is a scripture which describes what this case is about. The words in Doctrine and Covenants 134:1-2 give me some hope for a favorable outcome and some pride in what I do.
We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.
We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.
I wish I could have spent more time with everyone in DC. Thanks for your love, support and prayers. In a few months, we will have a decision and know what we have wrought.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Court preparations
It's been a long three days. I have done several media interviews, a photo shoot, lots of study, and two moot courts. The first moot court went quite well, which boosted my confidence. However, the second moot court was only marginal, which has shaken my confidence. I can only hope that I'm "on" the day of the argument.
We leave for Washington in two days!
Friday, February 10, 2006
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Potpourri
Grampy had his CAT scan today and it showed he is not in immediate danger, so surgery will be scheduled for March. The doctors expect a full recovery. Yeah!
Grammy Great is doing less well. She has fallen several times of late and broken ribs. She has been moved to a care facility.
I had my mock press conference today. Another thing down! Next Monday is the first moot court. That will be the toughy.
I understand challengers are lining up for laser tag at the family reunion. Brickman, Uncle Rico, and Rex Kwon Do have thrown down the guantlet. Let the games begin!
Grammy Great is doing less well. She has fallen several times of late and broken ribs. She has been moved to a care facility.
I had my mock press conference today. Another thing down! Next Monday is the first moot court. That will be the toughy.
I understand challengers are lining up for laser tag at the family reunion. Brickman, Uncle Rico, and Rex Kwon Do have thrown down the guantlet. Let the games begin!
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Update - Grampy Beal
I spoke with Grampy Beal today. He will be having a CAT scan Thursday morning for an aortic aneurysm. This is a bulge in the artery which would be immediately lethal if it burst. He said he is feeling ok, but I sense he is being stoic. The purpose of the CAT scan is to determine which of two surgical techniques to follow. Hopefully, they will be able to install a stint and take care of it. Keep him in your prayers. I will update you tomorrow.
Court prep
We had our national press conference today. It went very well. The reporters showed a lot of interest in the case and asked many good questions. After the press conference, I was grilled by some visting attorneys about my oral argument position which gave me sort of a pre-moot court practice. It was fun and instructive. Later in the day, as I was reviewing my reply brief to the government, I noticed a flaw in my argument which caused me some anxiety. But, after some thought, I worked out a fix, so I think I'm ok. This just reminds me how no one can think of everything (at least I can't) and how easy it is to get blind sided. Hope it doesn't happen in court.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Monday news
I had my mock media interview yesterday with full video tapings and evaluation. I did better than I thought I would and got two thumbs up from the trainers. Now, if the rest goes as well....
Sunday, February 05, 2006
Marching on ...
Things are getting intense with the approach of the USSC argument. I am undergoing media training and preparing for moot courts. Next week, I will need to complete my reply brief and formulate a strategy for oral argument. On Wednesday, I will hold a national press conference and then the following week I start moot courts-- 2 here and 1 or 2 in D.C.
I just learned that the government is sending in the "first string" team. The Solicitor General, Paul Clement, hisself will be arguing against me. Should be interesting. Obviously the Administration feels the stakes are high. Bush does not want to be accused of "throwing" the case although I still think the government position is indefensible.
Well, wish me luck, or better yet, keep me in your prayers.
Take a look at D&C 134:1-2. Nice to have divine validation for one's job.
I just learned that the government is sending in the "first string" team. The Solicitor General, Paul Clement, hisself will be arguing against me. Should be interesting. Obviously the Administration feels the stakes are high. Bush does not want to be accused of "throwing" the case although I still think the government position is indefensible.
Well, wish me luck, or better yet, keep me in your prayers.
Take a look at D&C 134:1-2. Nice to have divine validation for one's job.
Friday, February 03, 2006
Cinderella Man
Mom and I saw "Cinderella Man" last night. It was great! A must see. This is a "Rocky" type film about a comeback boxer during the depression. Ron Howard did a wonderful job directing and Russell Crowe and Renee Zellwegger were excellent!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
