t may have riveted the nation. But for the US Supreme Court, yesterday's historic oral argument was a 90-minute blend of the extraordinary and the extraordinarily mundane.
Extraordinary in that for the first time, the nation's highest judicial body scrutinized the election of the nation's chief executive. No case in generations has received so much public attention, said legal specialists.
But there was no lofty rhetoric about the sanctity of the vote, no partisan vitriol. Instead, the justices peppered lawyers with queries on Title 3 of the US Code and the Hayes-Tilden election of 1876. Conservative justices badgered George W. Bush's legal team, while the liberals pushed Gore's lawyers. Justice Clarence Thomas sat silently listening. The severely academic bent of the session, in the midst of the current political maelstrom, was merely business as usual, said scholars of the court.
As for predictions of the outcome, which could come next week, specialists urged caution. For one thing, it is difficult to gauge the high court based on oral arguments alone. In addition, this unique, intensely political case might compel the justices to seek a unanimous opinion that hides their ideological divisions, just as they did in other controversial cases like school desegregation, the fight over Richard Nixon's White House tapes, and the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit against President Clinton.
''A 5-to-4 split was clearly developing on the court,'' said Stephen Gottlieb, a visiting professor at Suffolk University. ''The question is, how important do the justices think unanimity is?''
Transcripts and audiotapes of yesterday's oral arguments flooded the airwaves and the Internet within an hour, probably providing most Americans their first glimpse of the Supreme Court in action.
What they read and heard was a group of justices well versed in the details of the Florida case, who appeared focused primarily on the proper role of courts in this messy political affair. Was the Florida Supreme Court right to intervene in the vote count? And does the US Supreme Court have any business wading into the matter?
Most professional court watchers agreed that oral arguments play a minor role in the court's actual decision making. Justices usually study cases for months and pore over heavily footnoted briefs. Then they hold conferences and votes to help them craft an opinion.
Some court watchers saw a familiar pattern yesterday, where the more ideologically driven justices tried to appeal, if subtly, to the the three more moderate justices, David O. Souter, Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony M. Kennedy.
''The justices were really talking to each other. You always see justices trying to talk to the middle, to Kennedy and O'Connor,'' said Heather Gerken, an assistant professor who specializes in election law at Harvard Law School. ''But it's incredibly dangerous to make predictions.''
Although several legal scholars said any precedent set by this case will probably be limited, Gerken said the case could have a ''dramatic impact, in the long term, on the role the courts play in the political process.''
Robert Bloom, a professor at Boston College Law School, said he believes that the justices already have reached their individual decisions.
''I think they've thinking about it for a while. It's possible they might have maybe been moved by oral arguments. But my guess is that they pretty much had their minds made up,'' he said.
The only question, said Bloom, is how the justices choose to voice their opinions.
''It would be wonderful if they could speak with one voice but I'm not sure that's going to happen,'' he said.
While the seemingly abstract, meandering tone of the session may have been intimidating to some, legal scholars expressed hope the lack of the partisanship that has characterized much of the fight was comforting to the public.
''I hope that they'll take from it that the court looked at this very carefully, very deliberately,'' said Marc Perlin, associate dean and law professor at Suffolk University's law school. ''It's taken it away from some of the visceral comments that we've been hearing and brought it to a much more reasoned plane.''
While Perlin and many of his colleagues eagerly gathered around their radios, televisions or computers to hear the case yesterday afternoon, for local students of the law it caused hardly a ripple. At Harvard Law School, lectures went on with full attendance, students focused on their course work in the library, and nary a peep about the Supreme Court case was heard in the hallways.
At the Kennedy School of Government, a large-screen TV broadcast CNN's coverage. But there was a problem: no audio.
Technical difficulties, administrators explained.
