The Courtroom is a battlefield, and oral argument requires a fair amount of verbal jousting and sparring with the Justices.
I've learned that the Court will continue to change the meaning of the Constitution. Although all of the Justices have expressed the importance of judicial restraint, the Court inevitably makes new law every time it interprets the Constitution.
In terms of style, the best advocates are relaxed, clear, in control, and confident. They embrace the hard questions with gusto. But no matter how hard you prepare, it's impossible to prepare for every conceivable question.
Clients trust you to represent their interest in the highest court.
Every woman who has left and gone into private practice has done fabulously. So the question is why aren't more women drawn to this field? It's helpful to enjoy the art of advocacy - verbal combat or verbal jousting. I find it telling that so many woman might be horrified, and you know, wouldn't want to do it.
The Supreme Court is not the impetus for constitutional change - we are.
My nine-year-old was trying to read my spiel. When she tried to pronounce the word 'pharmaceutical,' it was frightening. She would love to argue in the Supreme Court one day. My son asked me, 'Mommy, why do you have to have so many arguments? Why can't you have agreements?'
Some women tend to sell themselves short. I've only ever had women say to me, 'I could never argue in the Supreme Court!' Do you think a man has ever said that to me? Of course not.
For me, it's all about channeling the mistakes I've made and just saying all the things I wish somebody had said to me. I say to boys as much as girls: You've got to hold your chest high, and no matter what, you don't let the other side intimidate you.
That's the best part of being in private practice, by the way: being able to say whatever I want. In the government I couldn't talk to reporters and couldn't speak to the public, and now I just feel free. I have a First Amendment right again, and I exercise it daily.
I don't think anyone would describe me as an understated advocate. Several people have told me my argument style is very direct and very blunt, which I find mystifying. How could you ever be anything but direct and blunt?
It's a zero sum game: the Court either expands individual rights or expands the government's right to regulate individuals.
But the Supreme Court does not make sweeping changes in constitutional law by accident, or by its own design. Rather, the Court is limited to deciding the cases that the parties ask the Court to decide.
I've heard countless women - but not a single man - say to me, 'I could never stand up before the Supreme Court; it would be way too stressful.' But I've heard countless men, and very few women, say to me, 'I would love to argue in front of the Court; that would be so exciting.'
