Appearances Matter

Recently, I started watching the YouTube stream of the Supreme Court of Texas as if I am a nosy neighbor with a police scanner in my kitchen. Of course, it is beneficial for a young lawyer to see capable attorneys making strong arguments.

The Justices have maintained a sense of brand and are using the same zoom background which recreates the bench. The attorneys. however, are arguing in a variety of settings.

In the courtroom each attorney comes to the same lectern and address the justices. There is a uniformity which presumably dampens bias. Each attorney will, of course, present themselves in a suitably professional manner and will be appropriately dressed. The attorneys are afforded the same acoustics and background. There is less mental energy expended in adaptation.

As a millennial raised by TV I have a general idea of how multi-media should look and feel. The higher production value correlates to credibility in our minds regardless of logic. Zoom tends to favor the well prepared and tech-savvy attorney.

Is this equal? Should forum be left to the attorneys? Is an argument given from a bedroom chair less effective than one delivered in a conference room?

Does this cut at the pomp of the profession? Borrowing a term from contracts, is courtroom ambiance and sober visage really doing anything for justice? Or does it create an ivory tower? The court is not accountable to the people but the people are subjected to its will. Were these not elected positions an argument could be made for objective application of the law. The Trump administration has destroyed that once stable rock and it may not longer be used to hide.

More often than not I read texualist opinions only exist to justify inaction. The very antithesis of justice: inaction. A textualist must never address the action she is tak