There is a fascinating fight going on behind the scenes of a case about to reach the Supreme Court. The argument more or less boils down to whether a local attorney who has been with a case for a decade or an experience Supreme Court advocate fresh to the case should argue in front of the Court. They motioned for divided time but the Court said no so they have to duke it out sometime before arguments on November 3rd. The BLT has more on the case here.

Tom Goldstein (of SCOTUSblog) will most likely be arguing against whoever is chosen to represent the state.


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Categories

Random Posts

  • Early OT09 Stats: I've finally finished the first edition of my OT09 statistics. First, the links: Term Index and Term Opinion Breakdown. Honestly, the nam...
  • Predicting the April Sitting: I run into the exact same debate every year around mid-January: which cases will be heard during the current term and which will be pushed o...
  • Justice Ginsburg and the Future of the Court: One can only hope that Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) horded the tasteless Intrade contract for "Ruth Bader Ginsburg to Be Next Justice to Depar...
  • Westlaw Flag Colors for OT10 Cases: I've always thought it was funny that WestLaw handed out yellow flags like they were candy. I'm referring, of course, to "KeyCite Status Fla...
  • Top Female Advocates Before the Supreme Court: To celebrate Patricia Millett's record-breaking thirty-first Supreme Court argument last week in Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatom...