Second only to watching the proceedings in person or perhaps seeing them on television, listening to the Supreme Court justices argue and debate about a case was an informative and unique experience. Although I was aware of how the court system worked before listening to this proceeding, I was unaware about several of the stylistic processes involved in arguing a case. For example, I was not aware that each side had time requirements and that the proceedings were carried out in a more question-and-answer style. Hearing the justices ask questions of each other, probing the issue and the position of the other client with vigor but not hostility was also an informative and interesting glimpse into how our laws are interpreted.
             Because I wanted to consider an argument that is very relevant to today's politics, I choose Reno V. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. This case dealt with both illegal aliens and terrorism, too hot issues in today's United States. Essentially, the case revolved around six men who were threatened with deportation. It was the reason for this deportation that was disputed. The government claimed that the men were being deported for a variety of valid reasons, working with out a permit and failing to maintain student status among them. The young men's attorneys, however, argued that they were being deported because they were associated with a certain group that the government interpreted as being a threat. The young men had engaged in several activities that were legal, such as distributing magazines, activities that were protected by first amendment rights. The attorneys for this group were arguing that this process was selective, that they were chosen for deportation because of their political affiliation. Thus, the Supreme Court was arguing whether or not it was legal for the government to selectively deport those whom it sees as a threat if they have committed some type of ...