The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
So Far, the Supreme Court's Hybrid Oral Argument Format Is Working Well
And Justice Thomas asked the first question of the plaintiff and defendant.
Happy First Monday everyone! And a very happy day it is for those who favor transparency of the Court. If you visit SupremeCourt.gov now, you will see a new feature: "Live Oral Argument Audio."
Click that link, and a box will pop up with the livestream. This stream comes directly from the Supreme Court. Last year, C-SPAN broadcasted a conference call line. But now everything is handled internally. The audio quality sounds excellent--other than Justice Kavanaugh's staticky landline.
More importantly, the hybrid format is working well. It is so refreshing to hear the natural flow of arguments out of order. Justice Breyer had a delightful hypothetical about stealing San Francisco fog and bringing it to Colorado. Justice Gorsuch followed up on Justice Sotomayor's line of questioning. And, for those curious, Justice Thomas asked the very first questions for the plaintiff and defendant. The Justices must have reached some agreement to let Thomas go first. That way, he would not need to interrupt anyone. He seems prepared to continue his active questioning. There were a few awkward moments. At two points, Justice Kavanaugh tried to jump in, but he was interrupted. Chief Justice Roberts called on Kavanaugh to proceed.
Finally, I think adding reserved time at the end is a beneficial addition. The Chief went through the line, asking if anyone had new questions. Justice Gorsuch did. He asked several times whether the plaintiffs intended to actually file a motion to leave to seek equitable apportionment. The lawyer resisted the question. But Gorsuch only had the chance to push this issue because extra time was added at the end.
So far, so good. At this point, I do not think the Court can go back. Live-streaming of audio is here to stay. And welcome to Gail Curly, the new Marshall of the Court.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Finally a useful post by JB
Unlike the comment by DN.
Josh Blackman fans are among my favorite culture war casualties.
Deluded, disaffected, desperate, defeated. The clinger superfecta.
(I hope the tour is headed toward a stadium near you.)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Waste of brain cells warning
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
For any one reading the above, Kookland is performing his weird trick of "footnoting" his assertions with a music video. I didn't follow it, but hovering over it shows "youtube". So there's no need to click on it.
And then there's his tiresomely triumphal, but broken, crystal ball.
That exhausts his bag of tricks. No use in saying "Roll over, boy!" That's beyond his abilities.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
plaintiff and defendant?
you mean petitioner and respondent!