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

  • A Classic Oral Argument Passage: Today's New York Times article about Paul Clement, "Lawyer Opposing Health Law is Familiar Face to the Justices", reminds me of an interesti...
  • Traitors to the Cause: 6-3 decisions are, statistically speaking, the least common vote split. Frequently, those cases split along the ideological lines that are s...
  • Chief Justice Roberts and Unanimous Decisions: When he was nominated to the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roberts mentioned that one of his main objectives as chief justice would be to cre...
  • Rate of 5-4 Majority Opinion Authorship: As a general matter, the Justices that tend to carry the greatest ideological authority on the Supreme Court should be the ones authoring th...
  • 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...