|
THE COURT
by Christine Corcos
The temptation to compare CBS'
Supreme Court series First
Monday and ABC's The Court is great, especially
since both shows boast talented casts and impressive production
pedigrees. Like First Monday, The Court treats
us to experienced actors who really know how to get the most
out of their material and scripts that confront issues important
to all of us. But the ABC drama's premiere highlights some important
differences. For one, The Court also includes some characters
who serve as outside commentators on the action--a helpful dramatic
device that provides viewers with a contrast to the academic
discussion that could plague the show. For another, the writing
is better than on First Monday-more pointed, tauter, less
mannered and cliched.
 That said, I have some reservations
about the first episode, "Life Sentence", and they
arise not so much from the legal issue presented, but from the
behavior of the new Justice, Kathleen Nolan (Sally Field, and
not to be confused with the actress, Kathleen Nolan). The issue
discussed is important-whether "three strikes" laws
that mandate a life sentence for the convicted are constitutional
under the Eighth Amendment. Many of Nolan's comments and activities,
taken individually, are unlikely but possible. Taken together,
they suggest that we will have to take her judicial abilities
on faith, because she is truly wet behind the ears.
First of all, Nolan has no track record as a judge, a point mentioned
several times in the episode. Why is she attractive to the President?
She's a moderate and she's a popular politician (Governor of
Ohio, an important state in Presidential elections). Reality
check: The last politician appointed to the Court was Earl Warren,
also a governor (from California). He was so political that he
went along with the internment of Japanese-Americans during the
Second World War.
Nolan also seems absolutely astonished that she is the President's
nominee, and seems not to understand that in order to get confirmed
one must convince a majority of Senators that one should be confirmed.
A successful politician, as she is purported to be, would have
no problem understanding that fact. What is the point? That she
doesn't really want the job? Or that she wants it, but not at
the cost of her soul?
Certainly that is seems to be the theme of some of the scenes,
such as the one in which she objects to making courtesy visits
to influential Senators who could assist her confirmation. Her
maverick stance is admirable, but it doesn't get votes in real
life. And I simply cannot believe that such a rebel, charming
though she is, would have been elected as Governor of Ohio. Indeed,
Nolan's sole claim to the President's attention is that she is
a high-profile Governor, and she would have been elected based
on her ability to achieve consensus (I used to live in Ohio.
The politics can be brutal-trust me). Either she is a consummate
politician, who gets what she wants done by carefully crafting
coalitions, or she is an independent thinker, who does not. Both
in one person, the second emerging as her true self when she
sees the possibility of a lifetime appointment (her "life
sentence") are possible, but seem more like a Hollywood
fiction.
The nominee eventually memorizes her lessons well with the help
of the President's advisors, who coach her in classic responses
to hot button questions: "I cannot express an opinion on
that issue. To do so would be to suggest that I had prejudged
the case." Is she really so naive that she does not already
know that? Ohio like many other states elects its judges and
every election year there is much debate over what judge candidates
"really" think on any issue, versus what they can actually
say.
Nolan shows up after her confirmation at her new Chambers, and
asks her clerks, who are partying late in the evening (a tradition
instituted by her beloved predecessor) to help her get up to
speed on a case due to be discussed and decided in conference
the next day. The now orphaned clerks have been farmed out to
other Justices pending the swearing in of a new member of the
Court. Nolan tells them she will talk to them in a few days about
their futures but for right now she needs their assistance. She
sends the two male clerks off to get the briefs and tapes of
oral argument and asks the female clerk (Nicole DeHuff) to help
her box up the dead Justice's belongings. That they would still
be there laid out on the desk seems unlikely. That Nolan would
ask the one female clerk to help her carry out household chores
seems odd. (Unless she thinks that guys can't put stuff in boxes
carefully).
I can understand that Justice Nolan would like to hear the oral
arguments on the case, but why right away? By tradition, Justices
not on the Court at the time of oral argument do not deliberate
on cases. Why create a dramatic situation in which Nolan, a "newbie"
who lacks both allies and any history of judicial decisionmaking,
has to buck 200 hundred years of tradition? And why present her
as successful, in that she manages to push the Chief Justice,
in a few minutes of uninspired discussion, into scheduling reargument
of the case? Is the point that she is "her own woman",
not for sale to anyone?
Of course, a lot of this discussion is for the benefit of the
viewing audience. The writers try to make graceful virtues out
of very awkward dramatic necessities. They need to inform the
audience that, for example, an even split on the Court means
the appellate decision is upheld. They need to create some dramatic
tension between Nolan and her colleagues, showing that she will
not be a cypher on the Court. But all things being equal, and
good writers can make them equal, why not use the opportunity
to present accurate information about the Court? Why not educate
the public while entertaining it?
Likewise, the writers try, and mostly succeed, in making the
controversy over the "three strikes" issue understandable
to viewers who might otherwise think no discussion was necessary.
Journalist Harlan Brandt (Craig Bierko)'s use of the experiences
of both Nolan and the woman sentenced to life in prison is an
effective method of posing important questions about the responsibility
of society to provide equal access and equal opportunity-never
mind equal justice.
Many of the plot twists seem destined to be played out in future
episodes, such as the exact nature of Nolan's relationship with
onetime student Brandt, the "real story" behind the
mysterious "Nolan mess" that Brandt uncovers in a trip
to Nolan's home town (Cleveland), and Nolan's real position on
privacy issues and abortion. As a practicing Catholic she might
be expected to be against the death penalty and against abortion;
her guarded comments in the first episode suggest the opposite.
And, unlike most female lawyers on tv, Nolan has a supportive
husband. Like Queen Elizabeth II, who was up a tree in Kenya
when she succeeded to the British throne, Nolan's husband is
up the side of a mountain and inaccesible when she gets the call
to Washington. Of course he should be supportive-it's his second
marriage and she apparently has helped him raise his children,
but they have none of their own as one Senator offensively points
out during her confirmation hearings. Hubby (and by the way,
she doesn't use his name professionally) knew she was a career
woman when he married her, and he's Catholic, also--two reasons
that he's morally bound to hang around. The possibility of some
marital tension down the road adds to the details that make Nolan
a much more interesting character than Joe Novelli, her counterpart
on First Monday. It remains to be seen what the series will do
with them.
The rest of The Court cast is excellent, from Diahann
Carroll as a liberal colleague looking for allies to Chris Sarandon
as a similarly left-wing justice seemingly unaware of the scorn
in which some of his brethren hold him, to Pat Hingle as a conservative
intent on holding the line against crime. Miguel Sandoval is
the Hispanic representative on the Court. As an aside, I am always
amazed at the number of Hispanics, blacks and women represented
in the television and movie judiciary; it's a much higher percentage
and has been, historically, than is true in real life. Here popular
culture does us a favor by giving us images of what we could
be.
Betsy Tyler (Christina Hendricks), the aspiring journalist, already
has a lot of dimension as a woman making her way in a male-dominated
profession, much as Nolan does. Her colleague, the sour Harlan
Brandt, however, seems furious that his legal career did not
give him the job satisfaction he seems to think himself entitled
to. He affects a loner attitude toward his boss and societal
rules--he may think he's dangerously attractive and inspiring,
but he's childish and cliched. I hope this character develops
some depth, particularly because his narrative voice is so important
to the stories.
With ABC's The Court, television has a second chance at
presenting the Supreme Court to American viewers in an interesting
and educational as well as entertaining way. The writers need
add weight to Field's character, especially since she is so pretty
in the conventional sense, and older viewers still remember her
from her 1960s television series: Justice Gidget or Your Honor
Sister Bertrille both bring up images they will have to work
hard to erase. For that reason, I would have preferred an actress
who projects more "weight" as the incoming justice,
if only to add credence to the conceit that she was the President's
only choice for the vacancy. But perhaps casting Field as Nolan
points out a difficulty that women Supreme Court justices have:
reinventing themselves, particularly for those who remember them
as law students, law professors, or politicians. The contrast
between her patient acceptance of the Chief Justice's sophomoric
joke at her expense during her first Justices' conference and
her assertiveness in other scenes makes me think that the writers
will actually spend some time exploring the problems that women
professionals in general have in a man's world. The Court
gives us Sally Field as Justice Nolan, and on balance--I like
her. I really, really like her.
Posted March 28, 2002
|
