Replies

Anyone who is not dumb as a brick would know to predict where the Justices are likely to fall on a given case, and to know the cases inside and out, so as not to be embarrassed by questions from the bench. If you think that advice like that was "absolutely essential" for her handling of the case, you are grossly ignorant of what it takes to conduct a case in the Supreme Court.

Knowing to expect questions and knowing what questions to expect are significantly different however.

BTW, the woman did a horrendous job at oral argument in my opinion. Not that Tymkovich bowled anyone over, but he at least didn't make a fool of himself. She stumbled throughout the ordeal. Lucky for her she had 6 votes going in, cuz no way in hell did her performance change any minds.

Since I have worked on 19 cases, now, in that Court, I assure you from experience that Roberts' advice in this instance was the legal equivalent of "run along, little girl."

Which cases have you argued before the Court?

I have never had the pleasure/terror of arguing a case before the Supreme Court. In all 19 of my case participations, I only wrote a brief -- words on paper only. A couple of those cases were in a procedural posture where the Court hears no argument. In all the rest, that assignment went to others.

My first win in the Supreme Court was emergency relief in McCarthy v. Briscoe, September, 1976. Probably the best known case I participated in was Bush v. Gore, December, 2000. It's been a wild ride, with more wins than losses. LOL.

John / Billybob