Post-Game Wrap Ups From the Heller Line:
Was it worth it to wait in line for a day or two to see the Heller argument? Apparently so, at least according to the people who did it. GW Law students Tyson Horrocks and Ryan Haws were #3 and #4 in line, and they raved about the experience. A few questions I asked them:
Kerr: So you waited in line for about 36 hours for the Heller argument. Was it worth it?Another group of GW law students was near the end of the line that got in to the argument; "Mr. MG" filed his report here.
Haws: Absolutely. Oral arguments were incredibly interesting, and the Justices' interplay over the limits of the second amendment was lively and included some great one-liners. I feel like I couldn't have chosen a better day for a first visit.
Kerr: What was the high point of the experience?
Haws: The argument was obviously the high point, but the wait wasn't bad. The line was full of law students, attorneys, and gun enthusiasts, and the discussion was always interesting. Also, who can complain about having so much time to spend reading the best casebook ever?
Kerr: What was the low point of the experience?
Horrocks: The low point was Sunday night into Monday morning. The wind was brisk so it was FREEZING cold. It was one of those mornings that you looked at your clock around 3 in the morning and were thankful the night was halfway over.
Kerr: What did you do with all your stuff when you finally got into the Supreme Court building?
Horrocks: Ryan Haws' wife came and picked up the bulky gear at around 6:15 Tuesday morning. The rest of our stuff was placed into a locker inside the building.
confirmation bias-you dont want to admit something wasnt worth it after you did it
Oral arguments were incredibly interesting, and the Justices' interplay over the limits of the second amendment was lively and included some great one-liners. I feel like I couldn't have chosen a better day for a first visit.
yes. i enjoyed it to. from my house.
The wind was brisk so it was FREEZING cold. It was one of those mornings that you looked at your clock around 3 in the morning and were thankful the night was halfway over.
enough said
I am also wondering how malodorous these students were--though I realize that those next to them in line were probably equally pungent.
whatever ok.
Have you lost your sense of irony? You guys are way too earnest.
Guess they really were tired.
What you assume is JeffB's irony deficiency may just be his failure to express it very well. I've been victimized by and victimized others with that failing so often in blogs and comments, while rarely in person, letters or other writings, that I suspect there's something about blogs and comments that obscures irony. I prefer the self-congratulatory explanation that it's because some people like me resist using those ad hoc smiley-faces, emoticons and such. But real life hardly ever cooperates with such convenient explanations.
How dare you insult me so brazenly! You are banished forever!
I showed up at 6 AM and was no. 28. I'm told that up to No. 55-56 got into the courtroom, and the rest went into the overflow at the attorneys' lounge. Joe Olson, who was in there, said there was spare room.
As far as Thomas questions -- no, there were none.
Yup. That's just about my threshhold.
As for whether or not it was worth it: I'm divided. If I had more info to better prepare myself for sleeping outside and the wait in line, I might have had an easier time and not hated that part of it so much. Especially being so tired and nodding off a few times (and misinterpreting when the Justices speak apparently) kind of impaired it for me. But I'd never seen a Supreme Court hearing before (live or otherwise) nor been inside the building so to get to do both on such an occasion was memorable. I guess I'll go with: it was slightly worth it. Of the other two GW 1L's that I was with, one says he would have rather just watched it on tv and the other says it was definitely worth it.
And thanks for the link Prof. Kerr!
From a purely economic view, very few rational students can say it was worth it. I would wager that most students would say their time was worth at least $10/hr (e.g., would any work for a professor for less than that, even if that professor is Orin Kerr?). Then, ask those same students whether they would have paid $360 to attend the argument without waiting, i.e., essentially buying the first spot in line). I think most students would decline.
Even more true for those crazy lawyers who waited in the SCt bar line. I know one partner who waited in line from 5am. His billing rate is easily $600/hr. Would he pay $3000 or more to attend the argument w/o waiting, even though he could listen on TV for free? I don't think so.
I tend to disagree from the standpoint that Heller may be the important case this term--and how often can one say they actually watched history in the making?
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.