i'm a sucker for legal dramas. not in the "i couldn't wait to go to law school because i love l.a. law!" (actual quote from member of my first-year class) sort of way, but from a license to explore powerful dramatic themes point of view. yes, i watched ally mcbeal until it collapsed under the weight of cgi tongues smacking the floor every week. yes, the practice was appointment television until it became a russian roulette of character torture.

Now, with the popularity of NBC's The West Wing, it was only a matter of time before hollywood fictionalized the arbiter of the highest law of the land. and what a fiction it is. this version includes a black woman (special guest star diahann carroll) and a hispanic man, as well as sally field's justice nolan, a white, middle-aged, remarried, catholic governor of ohio. sally field AND the supreme court? i admit it. i'm hooked.

but here's my problem, something i've dubbed the "cunningham conundrum" after the character so memorably portrayed by marion ross all those years on happy days. you may remember my rant some time back about an episode of night court guest starring the inimitable ms. ross as a woman who was unable to distinguish reality from fantasy on television. how does a fictional portrayal of political or legal institutions influence our perceptions of them in REALITY?

With more and more hours of the day devoted to "reality" programming, it is increasing difficult to ascertain what is fiction and what is fact. remember when scully and mulder were on cops? cops is real, right? the x-files is fiction, right? even what is "real" can be cut, edited and manipulated in such a fashion that the truth at its core becomes ambiguous. is it any wonder there are probably folks out there that believe that martin sheen is president and stockard channing is the first lady? the mental leap to a supreme court as diverse as abc's isn't difficult to imagine in such a climate. it must be true, i saw it on TV!

do i believe that people are that stupid? well, no. do i believe that people are coaxed and prodded into being that passive? why, yes, i do. no need to worry about health care, campaign finance or national defense. rob lowe, allison janney and john spencer have got your back. ditto on abortion rights, discrimination or capital punishment. sally field, diahann carroll and chris sarandon are on the case.

maybe that's why the popularity of the west wing hasn't sparked any increased interest in actual politics. clearly, then, it is naive even to hope that success for The Court might inspire folks to actually pay attention to the supremes who are, arguably, nine of the most important people in the country, if not the world. remember "Election" 2000?

it is unclear from the first episode whether the black woman or the hispanic man is the stock "race traitor", espousing conservative views, but my money is on Miguel Sandoval's Justice Martinez. I do believe it is fitting for Ms. Carroll, who made television history by becoming the first black actress to star in her own series when Julia hit the airwaves in 1968, should make it again starring as the first black female justice of the supreme court. yes, I know, she's not really a supreme court justice; she just plays one on tv. but this may be as close as we get any time soon.

in fact, The Court must be set on another plane of existence not a near-term future in this world. here's why: until sally joined the court, justice sanchez had been the junior member, an unenviable slot held for six months by his telling. prior to that, justice vorhees (white guy chris sarandon) had held that title for SIX years. meaning that diahann must have been on the court for at least six and a half years. now for a liberal, or even moderate, black woman to be appointed to the supreme court within the next two, or conceivably six years, is about as likely as me dancing naked on the shores of lake michigan on the winter solstice. by this reckoning, it would have to be at least 2011, if not more like 2015, for this judicial makeup to be remotely plausible on our current timeline.

well, believe me, i'll be keeping an close eye on this one. will my analysis rely on strict scrutiny? probably not. more like rational basis with bite. justice nolan would be proud.