The US Supreme Court has a new rule this term for oral argument: Lawyers get two minutes to present without interruption. I have not seen reviews from those arguing this term (only about 6b cases have been argued so far). I listen to the oral arguments, and, sometimes, read the transcripts. Both are available fairly quickly after the arguments. Transcripts give a different flavor than the recordings. IN the Gay and transsexual employment cases, the recordings came off more favorable to a petitioner victory than did the transcripts -- instead of thinking it would be a 5/4 holding for petitioners, the recordings suggest 6/3 is possible. Of course, that is just speculation on my part, not prediction. The two minute rule has made listening to the arguments more interesting and accessible. Before, all too often, one would have to read the briefs to grasp the heart of the arguments. Now, one at least has an idea of what the parties think are the central issues. I suspect that questions are becoming more helpful as well, but the sample is way to small for such a conclusion yet.
Lawyers still think it a good idea to avoid answering inconvenient questions, which I still find puzzling. It is obvious one is avoiding the question, and obvious that is because an honest answer does one's argument no good. Are the Justices too thick to notice? That seems a doubtful proposition. There are other habits of Supreme Court practitioners I find a little odd. Justice gives a hypothetical and says I know this is not your argument and you do not think it is your case, but tell me what to make of it. The lawyer proceeds to say that is not my case and not my argument -- do they think the Justice will forget those facts in the time it takes to respond? I wonder, then, if there is any research on these issues, showing the efficacy of the practices?
Recent Comments