.png)
By Joe Wilson
Inside the McConnell Center’s seminar room stands a towering bookcase, its shelves filled with
works of history, philosophy, political science, and literature. Etched into the wooden paneling
are the words of President John Adams: “Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.”
Dr. Gary Gregg, our program director, is fond of reminding students that Adams chose these
words—and their order—with care. As we approach the big political, philosophical, and moral
questions of our age, Adams implores we follow this order of operations. First, we must read the
great minds who came before us, understanding how they perceived the world within their
historical, social, and cultural contexts. Then, we must think critically about their arguments,
measuring them against our own reasoning. Next, we engage in discussion, refining our ideas
through dialogue. Only after this rigorous process may we choose to share our perspectives more
broadly. Adams’ words underscore the intellectual humility and discipline that should guide us
daily. Whether we are in a classroom, listening to a sermon at church, or debating politics with a
friend, we must recognize the limits of our own knowledge and consider a diverse range of
perspectives. If we only seek evidence that supports our existing beliefs—a tendency known as
confirmation bias—we hinder our ability to grow and understand the world more fully.
Beneath Adams’ words, the McConnell Center Moot Court team gathers for weekly practice. For
me, Moot Court has been the most rewarding experience of my college career. The program
allows McConnell Scholars to explore the legal profession through participation in simulated
appellate arguments. Each fall, students receive a fictional case—crafted by the American Moot
Court Association—in which a defendant raises a constitutional challenge to a law or criminal
conviction. We then study relevant U.S. Supreme Court precedent, develop our arguments, and
practice presenting them before judges. Throughout my time on the team, we were guided by
McConnell Center alumni and practicing attorneys Sean Williamson and Jacob Abrahamson,
who helped us analyze case law and prepare for competition in November. During our weekly
practices, my eye would occasionally catch a glimpse of the quote, and the words would strike
me with new relevance. My experience on the Moot Court team challenged me to wade through
the legal issues of our time as we read from the finest legal minds in the country, built upon their
ideas, and crafted arguments of our own.
The American Moot Court Association designs cases that reflect timely legal issues. Recent
topics have included access to contraception, vaccine mandates, police tactics, and free speech.
These subjects, of course, are not just legally significant—they are politically sensitive. The
Supreme Court cases we studied were among the most high-profile and polarizing in recent
years, including Employment Division v. Smith (1990), Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), Kennedy v.
Bremerton School District (2022), and Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health (2022). As you can
imagine, these are topics that can easily spark strong reactions, but Moot Court challenges us to
set aside personal opinions and political preferences, focusing solely on legal reasoning.
To reinforce this principle, the competition structure requires all participants to argue both sides
of an issue. This means students often must defend a position that conflicts with their personal
views. It is a demanding exercise but an invaluable one. Appellate litigation is not about
engineering politically preferred outcomes in the courtroom. It is about articulating legal
principles and ensuring that government action aligns with constitutional limits. The focus is on
the legal process, not political results.
This approach contrasts sharply with how many engage with Supreme Court decisions. When a
controversial ruling is issued, the instinct is often to judge it based on personal political beliefs. If
a law we support is struck down, we may think the decision was bad, and vice versa. It is natural
to feel strongly about cases involving issues like abortion, gun rights, affirmative action, LGBTQ
rights, or campaign finance. However, political preferences and legal analysis are not the same.
Too often, public discussions about the Court’s legitimacy center on whether its rulings align
with individual beliefs rather than the legal reasoning behind them. Without grounding these
discussions in legal principles, controversies breed intransigence. Instead of demonstrating
intellectual honesty and humility through dialogue, many embody another quote from Adams:
“Thanks be to God, that he gave me stubbornness, when I know I am right.”
Yet, the Founders never intended the federal judiciary to issue decisions for the purpose of
satisfying the whims of the majority. Unlike the legislative and executive branches, which reflect
public sentiment, the federal courts are counter-majoritarian institutions. Judges are tasked with
interpreting and applying federal law, independent of political pressure. Thus, political dismay at
a Court decision does not prove its illegitimacy. Furthermore, the federal courts are not meant to
be the final word on all political and legal controversies. While their rulings define the scope and
limits of constitutional and federal law, the responsibility to address unresolved policy questions
falls to elected officials—Congress, the President, and state and local governments. In today’s
political climate, it is easy to dismiss Congress as ineffective, but when laws need to change, the
pressure should be on lawmakers, not judges.. Distinguishing between legal and political issues
is key to a well-functioning democracy.
That said, the politicization of the courts is unlikely to fade anytime soon. Every June, when
major decisions are released, passionate debates—and sometimes protests—erupt across the
country. Yet, I suspect relatively few Americans take the time to read the full opinions behind the
rulings they celebrate or condemn. I have noticed this issue in conversations with family, friends,
and classmates. Once, I even sat through an entire college lecture, listening to the professor wax
philosophic about the injustice of a particular court ruling before admitting she had never read
the opinion herself. It is entirely valid to have strong reactions to Supreme Court decisions, but a
deeper understanding of the legal reasoning involved would make these discussions much more
meaningful and productive.
The McConnell Center’s participation in the American Moot Court Association competition
provides students with this crucial education. Beyond legal analysis, the program builds practical
skills essential for a legal career. When I first joined, I lacked confidence in public speaking.
Arguing in front of experienced lawyers and judges as an undersgraduate only heightened my
nerves. But through practice, I improved my oral advocacy skills, learned to articulate arguments
clearly, and became more aware of habits like speaking too quickly or using filler words. Over
time, I grew more comfortable, learning to project confidence and authority when presenting
arguments.
Because of these intellectual and practical challenges, Moot Court was an invaluable experience.
Now, as I apply to law school and prepare for a legal career, I am deeply grateful for the program
and our coaches. Moot Court has given me a foundation in legal reasoning, advocacy, and
professional skills that I will carry forward into the next chapter of my journey.
Joe Wilson is a McConnell Scholar in the class of 2025. He is studying political science and history.