Just about one year ago, many of us again learned a good lesson about covering the U.S. Supreme Court, when the Justices left experts with the impression that the Court was ready to overturn the Obama health law.
But, it didn't happen.
So, after the first day of arguments on the issue of gay marriage, we should not rush to the judgment that the Court is going to find a way to dispose of the case in a limited manner, without making a broad judgment on same sex marriage.
Then again, we shouldn't ignore the signs of that, either.
The arguments didn't really show that either side had five votes in favor of gay marriage or against.
The argument of the Obama Administration for a middle solution that would impact California and eight other states didn't seem to get much traction either.
And as we go back over the transcript, some things do jump out as to what the Court might do.
The first focus is deserrvedly on Justice Anthony Kennedy, long seen as the "swing" justice on major cases.
But Kennedy did not seem to be swinging to either side - instead, he seemed to be waving red flags about the case.
"I just wonder if the case was properly granted," Kennedy said at one point.
"The problem with the case is, you're really asking - because of the sociological information that you cite - for us to go into uncharted waters," Kennedy told lawyers for opponents of Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California.
As for what "uncharted waters" meant - Kennedy had a little fun with everyone in the courtroom.
"And you can play with that metaphor - there's a wonderful destination or there's a cliff," Kennedy said, his voice trailing off.
One issue that Kennedy focused on was also probed by Chief Justice John Roberts, who interrupted after just a few seconds to make clear what he was interested in.
"Mr. Cooper, we have jurisdictional and merits issues here. Maybe it'd be best if you could begin with the standing issue," the Chief Justice said to the lawyer for those trying to leave Prop 8 in place.
Even some more liberal justices seemed to be looking for something in between for the Court.
"Is there any way to decide this case, in a principled manner, that is limited to California only?" asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
But as soon as pro-same sex marriage lawyer Ted Olson began to answer that question - by saying, yes - that's when Justice Kennedy broke in with his uncharted waters metaphor.
Let's remember how the Court set out this case:
"In addition to the question presented by the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: Whether petitioners have standing under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution in this case."
In other words, should this case have ever made it to the U.S. Supreme Court in the first place?
One of my cardinal rules is never try to predict what the Supreme Court will do with a case.
But the details of this first day of Supreme Court arguments certainly raise some interesting questions about how the Justices will proceed.
