My first introduction to the United States Supreme Court came in sixth grade, when we studied the history of the United States up until the Civil War in Mr. Kilborne's class. One of our assignments, as I recall, was an oral report on a significant event of the period, and one of my classmates chose the Dred Scott decision. As time passed, I developed a great interest in the role of the Supreme Court in American history, and with it, a strong desire to see first-hand what the institution was like. This past year, I had the privilege of serving as a law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, and so spent a considerable amount of time in that extraordinary marble building overlooking the Capitol.

My first impression was of the Court's solitude, which distinguishes it from the rest of official Washington. Outside the public areas, which constitute only a small portion of the Court, there is a vast amount of space and not that many people to fill it. There are, after all, only nine Justices, each of whom generally employs four law clerks, two secretaries, and one messenger. The Court does have a large administrative staff, but those offices are located on the lowest floor of the building. The result is that even during the business day and even when important cases are argued and significant decisions announced, one generally walks through empty corridors (and on the Court's second floor, empty corridors in which surplus furniture is stacked, like the attic of an English country house). To the extent that the Court's architects sought to create a realm of contemplation, they truly succeeded.

Then there is the grandeur of the institution. For much of its history, the Court labored in a small, dark room in the Capitol (which must have been extremely uncomfortable before the advent of air conditioning). In the 1920's, however, Chief Justice and former President Taft prevailed upon Congress to give the Court its own building. Even though the construction began and ended in the Depression, the result is magnificent, an effect that extends beyond the now-familiar front of the building, with its plaza, colonnade, and frieze declaring "Equal Justice Under Law." Most notable are the Court's four interior courtyards, all with fountains, reminiscent of an Italian villa. These, too, are almost always empty. My office looked out over one of these courtyards, and I frequently worked with the windows open, to the sounds of the fountains and the chirping of birds.

Unlike much of Washington in its current state, the Court stands out as an honorable institution. To be sure, there are significant disagreements on many cases, but from the glimpses I had, those disagreements do not affect the personal relationships between the Justices. On the days when cases are argued, they generally lunch together (on cafeteria food), and any harshness seems to be saved for dissenting opinions. Each case, it seems, is approached on its own, and minds do change upon reading and reflection. In this way, the Court fulfills its constitutional role, which was defined so well by Chief Justice John Marshall: "to declare what the law is."

We should be very proud of the Court and the work that it does. That said, I do think there is one danger to the Court as an institution: the way it is increasingly described by many journalists and law professors. Journalists tend to view the institution as consisting of political camps: Justices of the left, the right, and the center. Many contemporary law professors tend to view the traditional process of judging the resolution of disputes between parties as dry-as-dust, and prefer a Court that creatively crafts solutions to contemporary problems. I think that few, if any, of the Justices see their role in this way, or believe they are part of a particular political coalition. It does them a disservice to see their votes in a case solely as political process or to view them as exalted legislators.

Finally, I should include a few words about Justice Thomas. I found working for him to be constant pleasure. It is unfortunate that Supreme Court Justices must lead such private lives, because glimpses one has of them in the public sphere can be so misleading, Justice Thomas is a man of great intellectual interests, eager to discuss, for example, Dickens' Mrs. Jellybelly or the French Revolution. He thinks that all children should learn Latin. He encourages the free and open discussion of cases among his law clerks, although, as I can well testify, he frequently rejects their recommendations (while taking great care not to hurt their feelings). He has an extraordinary humility that is extremely refreshing in an era of increasing pride and self-display. Justice Thomas has a great dedication to the ideals on which this nation was founded and to the Constitution that embodies those ideals.

A graduate of St. Bernard's, class of 1981, Arthur Long went on to Groton School (class of 1985) and then to Harvard University being graduated in 1989 with a degree in history. After working for a few years, he returned to Cambridge and earned his law degree from Harvard Law School in 1993. In 1995, while practicing law at Davis, Polk & Wardwell in New York City, Arthur was offered the opportunity to clerk for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in Washington, D.C. His clerkship now ended, Arthur has returned to the financial institution group of Davis, Polk & Wardwell. He is glad to be back in New York and hopes to reconnect with his classmates who are also still in the city.

No. 21, Fall 1998, page 1