I've seen how the SCOTUS hears a case and that scares the crap out of me . The Attys. can hardly complete a sentence before they are interrupted by one or multiple members of the Court . Seem impossible at times for the plaintiff to even make their point . The judges for the most part are rude and highly arrogant IMO and in some cases seem to have already made up their minds on their decision . At least one of them should not even be hearing the case due to a conflict of interest ,, but as usual there is no one with the cajones to challenge that judge's ability to be fair and honest in rendering a constitutional decision .
Lionheartusa1 said:
"Seem impossible at times for the plaintiff to even make their point." I agree with your observation, but I would point out that the oral arguments are not intended to duplicate the work already done by those filing briefs before the Court.
The Justices have months to review the briefs, including responses to the intitial briefs and the various amici briefs (from "friends" of the Court). If I were a Justice I would be uninterested in hearing the briefs simply read out during oral arguments.
I would be interested in being able to ask a few very pointed questions which address a weakness or strength of an argument that wasn't adequately addressed in the briefs or to introduce a point-of-view not covered.