The most interesting thing about this morning’s argument in Abbott v. Abbott is that it breaks down all the normal divisions on the court: left versus right, women versus men, pragmatists, internationalists, textualists, idealists … all of it flies out the big ornamental doors as the court grapples with this new problem of international child abduction at the grittiest, most practical level. It feels nice. Less an ideological smack down than a good, old-fashioned family argument. I wouldn’t get too used to it. But I enjoy it while I can.
Back home now to defrost my toes and shed my hobo skin. A few thoughts before heading back to One First:
The quality of interviews from line this morning more than made up for my missing out at first in line by a single swipe at my snooze bar.
The line started building up around 5:30am. Economists, actors, political science professors, forensic psychologists, out-of-town tourists, and yes, more law students.
United States v. Comstock, which will be heard at 10am, was the biggest draw, although my usurper–one Shannon Salembier from Vermont Law School–snagged the official F1@1F title in order to see 11am’s Abbott v. Abbott. In contrast to yesterday, however, far fewer people in line today came “just because.” For details, come back tonight for my Vox Populi report.
Time to suit up. Rock!