Some time when you're really bored, dig up and read the oral arguments before the Supreme Court on the most recent flag burning case. There's a book/cd called "May It Please the Court" that has parts of the oral arguments for some important cases, and I'm pretty sure this one's in there.

They're examining a law that criminalizes flag-burning, to see whether it's an unreasonable government restriction on political speech (it is), and part of the concern is whether the statute is overbroad -- like would it criminalize something that it didn't intend to make illegal. There's this whole line of questioning in which Scalia says, "Well, what if it was a shirt with the stars and stripes on it? Would that be illegal? What if it was one of those little paper flags they put on cupcakes? Would that be illegal? What if it's a real flag and I accidentally let it touch the ground? I was told in elementary school that I should burn any flag that touched the ground -- so would that be illegal?"

It's really instructive. Also, it's a real lesson in what really goes on in oral argument. The Supreme Court makes its decisions based on the briefs and the transcript of the case that's been appealled, on the oral arguments made before it, and on discussions among the members of the Court. The discussions are completely private, and you can glean from the opinion what part of the written record may have been influential, but it's the oral argument that really gives you insight into the way the Court thinks.

Peace.