Anyone see Alan Shore’s Supreme Court argument on tonight’s show? He was representing a black defendant with an IQ of 70 who was convicted of raping an 8 year old and sentenced to death. His argument included challenges to the integrity of justices and the court. He claimed the court was highly politicized and activist. In addition he cited statistics showing the racially discriminatory impact of Louisiana’s application of the death penalty. Effective, persuasive arguments, I thought. But outside the bounds of permissible argument before the Supreme Court, at least as I understand it. Is the word “justice” anywhere in the Constitution? Is there something about Constitutional law and argument that makes certain arguments – effective arguments about justice and fairness – impossible? In making the arguments was Shore’s character violating the Rules of Professional Conduct? Or would it have been violation of the Rules not to make those arguments?