I probably shouldn’t get legal advice from the good wife, but in one epsiode from season 1, the entire firm is racing to include a last minute argument in the appellate brief so that they may argue it court. The Supreme Court may have less strict rules than the fictionalized 7th Circuit, though
A lot of what the lawyers say in oral argument has already been included in the briefs, and Clarence Thomas views oral argument as largely superfluous.
You know, there’s been a lot of attention paid the SCOTUS lately, lots of articles/news items to do with it’s makeup and profiles of individual justices, way more than any issue facing the court IMO.
Lots of them mention Thomas, those that focused on him zeroed in on his silence and that it’s recently been a decade…
Maybe he read some, or people near him did?
And that maybe that’s all this question was about?
"Jeezus, I tell them and tell them, this is all in the briefs, why do I have to lay here being lulled to sleep by the droning of these fucktards day after day when I’m going to write on what I learn from the briefs…FFS!!
sigh… and now come these sumbitches claiming I’m not doing my job because I don’t jump through the same hoops as these other clowns for the sake of the gallery…
Oh fuckit, I’ll just ask a question…god it’s …so…hard…to…care, uh…
I wonder if this latest whiz kid can give me one, I just thought of several… I swear to god I’ll go back to sleep for 10 more years if I don’t like your answer lady, THINK HARD.
Which is all well and good, but neither side of an issue is all-seeing and all-knowing and they both have axes to grind. I find it inconceivable (yes, I do know what that word means, TYVM) that a “reasonable person”, (yea verily, one hopes, intelligent in this case), could find all of the answers to their questions regarding the issue within the contents of the briefs*.
(*Underpants gnomes in the peanut gallery may stand down.)
I could see a principled argument here. You’re not there to make the rules, you’re there to interpret them. I’d be against it on the basis of it being so unusual, hoping to light a fire under Congress’ collective ass to actually get it made into a felony; not sure why it wasn’t in the first place.
They have the whole transcript linked from a link in the article! And for once it’s an interesting read!
There’s no way they were confused on that particular subject. It looks more like Mr. Thomas was in it specifically to make a point, though whether it was because of Scalia’s death or him really caring about the subject is up in the air ATM.
He has also said he is self-conscious about the way he speaks, partly
because he had been teased about the dialect he grew up speaking in
rural Georgia.
If he has not matured since his childhood, enough to think of himself as worthy of speaking, then he shouldn’t have gone into law other than to work as a paralegal.
Yeah? Well, it looks like being senate majority leader doesn’t mean you know laws. You just make them. Or if we’re talking about the last 8 years, obstinately block anything Obama wants to do.
Just because McConnell was elected to do a job doesn’t mean he actually does it, nor does it mean he’s even competent to do it.
Wait, was his question rhetorical? I can easily think of a bunch of misdemeanors that can result in incarceration. Isn’t it a suspension of a constitutional right?