Moore v Harper argument

[Aardvark86]

Missed the argument of the petitioner, so I don't necessarily have a great read on the tenor of the justices questions other than that Alito and Gorsuch seem most interested in single state legislature arguments, and there is a touch of dubiousness to Kav's and Barrett's few questions. Respondents' counsel Katyal is really, really good, if a wee bit snarky for a proceeding like this for my taste. It always boggles my mind how incredibly well prepared the best Supreme Court advocates are.

A couple of funny moments thus far, when Thomas says he feels like he's been waiting 30 years to ask a question, and when Katyal makes a pretty obscure Lolapalooza reference.

 

[HawkCat]

Missed the argument of the petitioner, so I don't necessarily have a great read on the tenor of the justices questions other than that Alito and Gorsuch seem most interested in single state legislature arguments, and there is a touch of dubiousness to Kav's and Barrett's few questions. Respondents' counsel Katyal is really, really good, if a wee bit snarky for a proceeding like this for my taste. It always boggles my mind how incredibly well prepared the best Supreme Court advocates are.

A couple of funny moments thus far, when Thomas says he feels like he's been waiting 30 years to ask a question, and when Katyal makes a pretty obscure Lolapalooza reference.

I tuned in during the petitioner's argument. Justice Barrett seemed to be ripping into petitioner's counsel pretty good, expressing strong skepticism about his argument that there is a distinction between procedural and substantive checks on a state legislature's interpretation of election rules. It was my first time hearing her in action. I was surprised at how almost hostile she was toward counsel (perhaps justifiably so, mind you).

 

[Aardvark86]

I tuned in during the petitioner's argument. Justice Barrett seemed to be ripping into petitioner's counsel pretty good, expressing strong skepticism about his argument that there is a distinction between procedural and substantive checks on a state legislature's interpretation of election rules. It was my first time hearing her in action. I was surprised at how almost hostile she was toward counsel (perhaps justifiably so, mind you).

Interesting, because she and Kavanaugh are generally the exact opposite of that in most oral arguments.

 

[Colonoscopy]

I had no idea this existed:

Live Oral Argument Audio

www.supremecourt.gov

 

[Aardvark86]

I had no idea this existed:

Live Oral Argument Audio

www.supremecourt.gov

I would highly recommend that everyone pick a case and listen to an argument sometime. What I think you will find is that the justices and the process are, in fact, incredibly professional, collegial, and by and large polite in the way they do their business.

We could take a page from their book.

 

[HawkCat]

Interesting, because she and Kavanaugh are generally the exact opposite of that in most oral arguments.

I think she was frustrated because counsel wasn't answering her actual question.

 

[HawkCat]

I would highly recommend that everyone pick a case and listen to an argument sometime. What I think you will find is that the justices and the process are, in fact, incredibly professional, collegial, and by and large polite in the way they do their business.

We could take a page from their book.

Agree. It is also clear how smart these justices are. And I think this is largely true of the federal judiciary generally. By contrast, the quality and temperaments of state court judges are more variable--particularly in states that elect judges.

 

[Colonoscopy]

I would highly recommend that everyone pick a case and listen to an argument sometime. What I think you will find is that the justices and the process are, in fact, incredibly professional, collegial, and by and large polite in the way they do their business.

We could take a page from their book.

Yeah. We've all seen the news bits about how the public has lost confidence in the supreme court. I think this has more to do with the politicization of the media layer than the court itself.

10 minutes listening and you'll realize that these aren't partisan hacks.

 

[Aardvark86]

Yeah. We've all seen the news bits about how the public has lost confidence in the supreme court. I think this has more to do with the politicization of the media layer than the court itself.

10 minutes listening and you'll realize that these aren't partisan hacks.

Yep. Believe it or not, people can actually have fundamentally different jurisprudential approaches to resolving cases and not want to kill the other side.

 

[Aardvark86]

Agree. It is also clear how smart these justices are. And I think this is largely true of the federal judiciary generally. By contrast, the quality and temperaments of state court judges are more variable--particularly in states that elect judges.

The worst judge I ever had was a federal judge in Philly whose background was as a state legislator. You would not want to try a serious complicated case before him in a million years. But inasmuch as most cases aren't actually serious complicated cases, his approach was actually pretty damn effective at keeping his docket pristinely clear. Basically, he'd put such incredible time pressure on the parties (e.g., he once literally said, "no deposition should take more than 20 minutes") that the lawyers were usually left with no option but to settle. And if they didn't, he'd just dismiss the case sua sponte, direct the parties to talk settlement, and tell the parties to write him a letter if they couldn't.

 

[Chishawk1425]

Marc Elias team thread here

 

[theiacowtipper]

Yeah. We've all seen the news bits about how the public has lost confidence in the supreme court. I think this has more to do with the politicization of the media layer than the court itself.

10 minutes listening and you'll realize that these aren't partisan hacks.

Hacks. No. Partisan. Yes.

 

[Finance85]

Yep. Believe it or not, people can actually have fundamentally different jurisprudential approaches to resolving cases and not want to kill the other side.

In fact they all ask for clarification of answers to questions asked by other Justices. Helping each other out, even if they have fundamental differences. Trying to understand both sides of an argument.