First Monday

I don't know why it is, but it seem like every time a show with a little intelligence or educational value is put into prime time, it seems to fail. Is the American public really that uninterested ? Or is it that the networks are just so anxious to "make a buck" that they're unwilling to give it time to find an audience and receive "word of mouth" ? I hope one of the cable channels , like USA Network, will show this series. It was excellent, in that it showed the inner workings of the Supreme Court. James Garner, Joe Mantegna, and Charles Durning were great in their roles, and it showed how a decision could affect a Justice's family. It also showed how crucial the research of the clerks is, and how it can make or break a decision. I was so disappointed when it was cancelled after only 13 episodes. Due to the imminent upheaval in the Supreme Court, it should, at the very least, be released on DVD. It was an Emmy -nominated series !

"First Monday" gave us something we don't see enough of on fictional television: honest debates on serious subjects. Sure the show was a rip-off of "West Wing" and just an excuse to make political statements, but at least the show recognized the legitimacy of the arguments on both sides of the issues instead of making one side the hero and one side the villain. Unfortunately, that seemed to be the whole point of the show. Court shows have to be about more than issues if they're going to be remotely interesting. Look at "Judging Amy". The political statements are only plot points. The court cases take up only about a quarter of the episode time. The whole purpose of the show is to see how legal issues affect the characters' personal lives and vice versa. But that's far more than anyone can expect from a series by Bellisario. He thinks in terms of plot, not characters. That fine for a series like "Quantum Leap" but not something intellectually deep like the Supreme Court.

This show gets into the politics of our high court. It's nice to see a show about lawyers that deal with the soft side, with clothes on. The show is well written and moves well on a theme. I recommend it to anyone who wants to think about an issue.

I loved that a major network show was trying to dramatize the Supreme Court, but I hated that it was done so poorly. This show was dumb from start to finish. Not only was it horribly inaccurate to anyone with even a basic knowledge of the Supreme Court (or law in general), but it was also ridiculous as a drama and its handling of moral discussions was superficial and inane. ABC's "The Court", though certainly not perfect, was a much better attempt, both at depicting the Court, and at making an intelligent drama.

When i first heard about the show i was excited because a show that includes James Garner, Charles Durning and Joe Mantegna must be great. After watching severall shows i have now finally given up, this show clearly shows that good cast alone does not make a good show. Basically the show is all about Joe Mantegna who plays Justice Novelli is new in the supreme court and he always seems to have the decisive vote, IN EVERY SINGLE SHOW. His assistants who research his cases all compete on having their influence on the vote and it gets very irritating after a while. The biggest problem with the show is obviously the writing, is poor by any standards. This show has major problems if it is to survive beyond this season.