(no subject)

[3pipeproblem]

Warning: tl;dr. And probably squee-harshing. For the record, I really did enjoy last week's ep, and the ep the week before.



Last year, I saw a case argued before the Supreme Court as part of my Constitutional Law and Free Enterprise class. We were originally going to see an employment discrimination case (because it, well, had something to do with free enterprise), but it was dismissed or settled or something, so we ended up watching oral arguments for Panetti v. Quarterman, a death penalty case. Basically, the Panetti understood that he'd committed a crime. He understood, moreover, that he was going to be executed, but he couldn't make the connection between the two--he thought he was going to be killed for preaching the gospel. Our professor distributed some background materials (ahahaha, which we passed around in the van on the way there), and it was pretty clear to me that the guy was mental ill. I don't remember much of it, but I do recall that in his original trial, he represented himself and tried to call JFK and the pope as witnesses.

But, compelling as that fact was, it was mentioned only in passing, because the Supreme Court's mandate is to decide constitutional law. A lot of time was spent arguing over whether the Court had jurisdiction at all.

I just...ugh. Yes, it's television. Yes, it's Boston Legal, and I can write off Denny making eyes at Ginsberg and so forth, but Alan would never have been able to get away with lecturing the members of the Supreme Court on their duty to the country, on their duty to society, on how children react to rape, on how many executions he's witnessed...it's simply not relevant. And he went uninterrupted for a good five minutes, which, unless he'd appalled everyone into silence, never would've happened. The members of the Court are extremely intelligent people. I don't necessarily admire Scalia, but the guy is really fucking smart. He would've torn Alan to pieces. After season after season of buffoonish judges, Boston Legal finally had a chance to showcase a compelling legal debate (not that that's what most viewers are interested in, but whatever), and instead Alan's self-righteousness trumped all.

I can understand Alan trying to personalize the case rather than argue the constitutional basis for it. That's who he is, and he didn't have a lot of time to prepare, and he was nervous. But to then be--unanimously--applauded for it? To be called noble and a credit to the profession? He lost the case, as far as I'm concerned. A man's life was in the balance and rather than do everything in his power to save him, Alan decided to go on an ethical tear before the Supreme Court.

It's exactly the opposite of what Alan Shore would've done on The Practice.

The Clarence Thomas bit was good, though. And Denny was adorable throughout.

Comments

[3pipeproblem.livejournal.com]

Ugh, I hate it, too. Sometimes there's a legitimate connection between Alan/DEK's pet cause and the case, but other times...he goes off on these huge tangents that have nothing to do with his client or the issue at hand. He was so unbelievably arrogant (and not in a good way), telling the SC what role they should be playing.

Hahahahaha, yes. When I went, we made a bet about Thomas speaking, too, but it was for like...ten cents.

Alan and Denny in DC deserved at least two episodes. They got two episodes in LA!