Justice Stephen Breyer, one of the smartest guys around, ran scared for his first three years on the high court bench. That should give the rest of us pause. From the article, below:
He had felt adequately prepared and had expected to move comfortably into his new role, he said, and was therefore surprised at how overwhelming he found it.
"I was afraid I might inadvertently write something harmful," Justice Breyer said. "People read every word. Everything you do is important. There is a seriousness to every word, and you really can't go back. Precedent doesn't absolutely limit you. In almost every case, you're in a wide-open area. The breadth of that opening, getting up to speed on each case, constitutional law as a steady diet, the importance to the profession. ..." His voice trailed off, and he shook his head. "My goodness!" he exclaimed.
Don't you think the highlit portion is an interesting insight based on a difference in perspective between that of a sitting justice and law students like you'n'me?
You and I may think that a new issue is very narrow, falling somewhere between this line of cases and that, but almost imperceptible. Who would've thought to bring a case that fits in-between the cracks, we wonder.
But from the standpoint of the justice who has to decide the issue, the narrow crack looks like the Grand Canyon, and he has a world of material from which to draw in deciding it.
Remember that, the next time you have to state what the issue is in a case.