I’ve been looking at the data with an eye towards gleaning a patter from the Court’s decisions. I’m not sure how the decision-making process works, but I’m certain that this is a decision made by the Chief Justice or the entire court- this is not a decision that could be made by the court’s staff.

Assuming that one or more members of the court actively vote on whether or not to grant C-SPAN’s infrequent requests, there are a few theories that could explain how the court decides when to release oral argument recordings on an expedited schedule:

1) A few of the justices wants to emphasize the seriousness of the case to one of their colleagues and therefore allows C-SPAN to air audio coverage of the case. Allowing audio to be released could play a role in amplifying the media coverage of a case and the Justices would certainly notice if their voices were being broadcast on the nightly news. In a case like Heller, the conservative justices might want to make it clear to Justice Kennedy that public opinion belong to their side.

2) The flip side of (1). Justices are trying to underscore the importance of a ruling for one of their fellow justices in an effort to make an uncomfortably broad ruling seem more palatable. For example: In a case like Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, the conservative justices might like to see media coverage minimized so Justice Kennedy wouldn’t feel so uncomfortable ruling in their direction.

3) Another strategic move I haven’t discovered (TITCR)

4) Caprice.

You can see the C-SPAN list below the fold.

2000-2001 Term
1-Dec Bush v Palm Beach County Canvassing Board – Agreed
11-Dec Bush v Gore – Agreed

2002-2003 Term
1-Apr Grutter v Bollinger – Agreed
1-Apr Gratz v Bollinger – Agreed

2003-2004 Term
8-Sep McConnell v FEC – Agreed
20-Apr Rasul v Bush and Al Oday v US – Agreed
27-Apr Cheney v US District Court – Agreed
28-Apr Hamdi v Rumsfeld – Agreed
28-Apr Rumsfeld v Padill – Agreed

2004-2005 Term
13-Oct Roper v Simmons – Denied
2-Feb McCreary County v ACLU – Denied

2005-2006 Term
30-Nov Ayotte v Planned Parenthood of Northern New England – Agreed
6-Dec Rumsfeld v Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights – Agreed
16-Feb Request to tape the investiture of Alito at the Court – Denied

1-Mar League of United Latin v Perry – Denied
28-Mar Hamdan v Rumsfeld – Agreed

2006-2007 Term
8-Nov Gonzalez v Planned Parenthood – Agreed
8-Nov Gonzalez v Carhart – Agreed
4-Dec Parents Involved v Seattle School District No. 1 – Agreed
4-Dec Meredith v Jefferson County Board of Education – Agreed
10-Jan Davenport v Washington Education Association – Denied
20-Feb Rita v United States – Denied
25-Apr FEC v Wisconsin Right to Life – Denied

2007-2008 Term
9-Oct Stoneridge Investment v. Scientific Atlanta – Denied
10-Oct Medellin v. Texas – Denied
5-Dec Boumediene v. Bush & Al Odah v. U.S. – Agreed
7-Jan Baze v. Reesv – Agreed
9-Jan Crawford v. Marion County – Denied
18-Mar District of Columbia v. Heller – Agreed
25-Mar United States v. Ressam – Denied
16-Apr Kennedy v. Louisiana – Denied

2008-2009 Term
8-Oct Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Counc – Denied
6-Oct Altria Group, Inc. v. Good – Denied
4-Nov FCC v Fox Television – Denied
12-Nov Pleasant Grove City v. Summum – Denied
3-Dec Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Williams – Denied
10-Dec Ashcroft v. Iqbal – Denied
3-Mar Caperton v. A.T. Massey – Denied
29-Apr Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District v. Holder – Agreed
9-Sep Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission – Agreed

2009-2010 Term
2-Nov Jones v. Harris Associates – Denied
9-Nov Graham v. Florida – Denied
9-Nov Sullivan v. Florida – Denied
23-Feb Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project – Denied
1-Mar Skilling v. U.S. Enron – Denied
2-Mar McDonald v. Chicago – Denied
19-Apr Christian Legal Society Chapter v. Martinez – Denied

Total Cases – 46 (not counting request for Alito investiture)
Agreed – 21
Denied – 25

Related posts

• Oral Argument audio recording released in Northwest Austin (April 29, 2009)
• Time to Update the Resume (April 29, 2009)
• The Weeks Ahead (April 12, 2009)

Related posts

• Time to Update the Resume (April 29, 2009)
• The Weeks Ahead (April 12, 2009)
• Supreme Court will reargue Citizens United (June 29, 2009)

By contrast, when Justice Alito first sat on the Court on February 21, 2006 in Rapanos v. United States and he asked a single question. His only question appeared on page 5.

Similarly, Justice Sotomayor spoke only four times today during her first oral argument on the Supreme Court. Her first question came on page 24 and she went back and forth with former Solicitor General Ted Olson with a few lengthy questions.

Related posts

• Oral Argument Stats Posted (December 12, 2008)
• Which Justice Is The Most Talkative? (November 8, 2007)
• Supreme Introductions (December 20, 2008)

Solicitor General Kagan did a fantastic job for her first oral argument. Her position was a difficult one and the Justices who disagree with her position certainly held no punches. Chief Justice Roberts, in particular, went after her position and commented on some aspects of the SG’s uncomfortably paternalistic position. Admittedly though, this was an interest set of arguments because each Justice seemed more clear than usual in the position they would be taking.

I’d recommend this set of oral arguments to anyone with an interest in the Court. The parties made some pretty interesting, well-laid out claims. As soon as we get the transcript I’m sure the (laugher.) count will be very high. You can find an audio recording from c-span here.

Related posts

• Reflections on my First Live Oral Arguments – Ricci v. DeStefano (April 25, 2009)
• Kagan May Not Argue Until OT09 (April 14, 2009)
• Final Argument Transcript of the Term – Northwest Austin v. Holder (April 29, 2009)

The Court will hear rearguments on September 9. Obviously, that means it will happen during OT 08 and a decision will be rendered before the start of oral arguments in October. OT 08 is not finished and, therefore, I can’t publish any truly final statistics until the end of September.

Related posts

• The Weeks Ahead (April 12, 2009)
• Supreme Court Oral Argument Tussle Gets Serious (October 11, 2008)
• Reflections on my First Live Oral Arguments – Ricci v. DeStefano (April 25, 2009)

The arguments made were certainly very interesting. Justice Scalia, while criticizing the near-unanimity with which Congress passed the VRA extension, made this observation:

You know, the Israeli Supreme Court, the Sanhedrin, used to have a rule that if the death penalty was pronounced unanimously, it was invalid, because there must be something wrong there.

I wasn’t aware of an such law, but the concept seems silly. The fact that something is so clear as to illicit a unanimous judgement doesn’t seem to in any way suggest a particular path for its reasoning. Justice Scalia’s hypothesis that Congress has a bias in favor of maintaining the status quo with regards to the VRA might be correct, but I just don’t see it playing into the equation here. Both sides are trying to argue the VRA on its merits and I’m not sure political bias of congress has a major role to play in this case as a balancing factor.

Justice Kennedy brought up some soverignty issues that I didn’t expect to see during oral arguments:

[Y]et the Congress has made a finding that the sovereignty of Georgia is less than the sovereign dignity of Ohio. The sovereignty of Alabama, is less than the sovereign dignity of Michigan. And the governments in one are to be trusted less than the governments than the other. And does the United States take that position today?

The sovereignty issue seems a bit odd to me. When the VRA was passed in 1965, Congress used a test to determine which localities met certain conditions and if so, the pre-emption clause was applied to them and they were forced to comply with Section 5. Petitioners argue that the conditions that were at play in 1965 no longer apply and that if the same test was used today, only parts of Hawaii would fall under Section 5, but I the argument that the test was used to unfairly infringe upon the sovereignty of some states while leaving others alone seems bizarre.

Anyways, the arguments are definitely worth a listen if you have a few moments to spare.

Related posts

• Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District and the Future of Section 5 (June 24, 2009)
• Northwest Austin and the Forthcoming Ricci Decision (June 24, 2009)
• Initial Thoughts on Northwest Austin v. Mukasey (January 10, 2009)

Well, Carter Phillips of Sidley Austin has been creeping up for some time now and finally beat him when he argued for the respondents in Gross v. FBL Financial Services in March. Phillips’ online biography says that he now has 65 arguments.

By my count then, Phillips has argued the third most cases of anyone currently practicing, behind Michael Dreeben and Edwin Kneedler. What is impressive though, is that 56 of Phillips’ arguments came while he was working in private practice, possibly more than anyone else that I know of. Frey served as Deputy SG for 13 years (1973-1986) and likely amassed at least half of his current total during that time. Both Dreeben, Kneeder, and Lawrence Wallace (157 total, but retired in 2003) have argued all of their cases as members of the Office of the Solicitor General.

Related posts

• The Weeks Ahead (April 12, 2009)
• Reflections on my First Live Oral Arguments – Ricci v. DeStefano (April 25, 2009)
• Advocate Scorecard for OT00-Present (August 2, 2009)

Related posts

• Kagan May Not Argue Until OT09 (April 14, 2009)
• Final Argument Transcript of the Term – Northwest Austin v. Holder (April 29, 2009)
• C-SPAN Releases Oral Argument Audio Request History (April 16, 2010)

I arrived in Washington around 11:30pm and, after a friend told me that no one was in line at the Court, we got chinese food in Chinatown. We got food and returned to the Court around 2:00 and ran into Ryan Bates and a group of the firefighters who had arrived around 12:30. We searched in vain for coffee and most sat around doing very little. Coffee came around 5:00 but for the most part, nothing of substance happened until 7:00a. Waiting in line for that long is never easy, but fortunately Norman Pattis, of the firm with which Karen Torre is Of Counsel, was behind us in line and happened to be a fascinating person. He was leaving DC that afternoon to have dinner with Sonia Sotomayor!

At 7:00a, the Court handed out tickets to everyone and allowed us to enter the building to get food at the cafeteria and use the restrooms. We reconvened in line at 8:45 and they initially allowed the first 50 people to enter the chamber. As #11, I was never terribly concerned about getting in, but there was always a threat that seats had been delegated away by parties.

Shortly after we filed into the courtroom, Attorney General Eric Holder and Solicitor General Elena Kagan walked in with a slew of people from the Justice Department. I saw Michael Dreeben (3rd most arguments completed amongst living people) and a few other attorneys from the SG’s office.

The Court convened and the Chief Justice asked Solicitor General Kagan to the podium. She formally introduced Attorney General Holder to the Court and he delivered a few short remarks. As he was going back to his seat, the Chief announced the decision in Nken v. Holder to a jovial courtroom chuckle. The Court had decided against the newly-minted Attorney General 7-2, with Justice Thomas joining a dissenting opinion written by Justice Alito.

After the customary 5-minute (ish) synopsis of the majority opinion, the Chief Justice asked a number of attorneys to the podium to introduce new members of the SCOTUS bar in open court. At one point, an attorney introduced his own wife and, to uproarious laughter, emphasized the standard declaration of the fitness of her character.

You can find a transcript of the arguments in Ricci here. Argument began with Gregory S. Coleman for the petitioners. Coleman was allowed to get about 30 seconds into his case before Justice Stevens interrupted to begin questioning.

Justice Kennedy asked some interesting hypotheticals during oral argument about whether or not cities should be forced to take statistically race neutral tests at every opportunity. You can find much more thorough recaps of the arguments by SCOTUSblog and the NYT.

I’ve been inside the courtroom before but I’ve never seen it packed with so many people before. The room is smaller than many people imagine but can be packed to fit a surprisingly large number of people. We are always reminded of “old” and “young” justices, but when I saw them all lined up, my first impression was that they are all, for lack of a better word, old. Justice Scalia is often called a ‘relatively-young’ Justice, but at 72 years-old, he is still above the average retirement age for someone in his economic class.

After arguments are complete, the Chief Justice submits the case and the Justices immediately swing around in their chairs and exit the courtroom. Justice Ginsburg had a bit of trouble getting out of her seat and Justice Souter had to help her up.

It is my firm belief that, for a portion of oral arguments, Justice Clarence Thomas read my amicus brief. Here is my evidence to support that claim:

After arguments, we immediately left the courtroom and congregated in the main hall leading out onto the steps. I ran into a person who I thought was Ted Olson in the cloakroom, but it turned out to be legendary conservative commentator George Will. We exited for the steps where we were greeted by a number of journalists and curious spectators. I saw the woman of my dreams- Nina Totenberg!!

After some of the crowds dispersed, I introduced myself to many of the parties involved in arguments and in the case. Edwin Kneedler was just as interesting and professorial as I had expected. He answered some of my questions about the most active advocates before the Court and I can now say with more authority that Lawrence Wallace has argued more than anyone else alive, Mr. Kneedler is next, and Michael Dreeben third. After that, I believe Carter G. Phillips came into fourth this year and Andrew Frey is slipped into fifth after being in third for several years.

Christopher J. Meade, the arguing attorney for the respondents, was incredibly interesting and kind. He delivered arguments that would have been impressive for some of the advocates I just listed, but this was only his fourth time before the Supreme Court. I told him after the arguments that I thought he presented a very strong case and that, even though I filed a brief for petitioners, I was somewhat sympathetic to his side. He asked me to blog about it if I really felt that way, and here it is!

Related posts

• The Weeks Ahead (April 12, 2009)
• Time to Update the Resume (April 29, 2009)
• Kagan to Split Time with Waxman in Citizens United (July 24, 2009)

Scene: Justice Breyer brings up a set of statistics from the record.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Excuse me. I am not following this exchange because I don’t understand whether the — the statewide percentage is the statewide percentage of English learners or the statewide percentage of all students.
MR. [KENNETH] STARR: Here is — and I think we can cut to — I’m sorry.
JUSTICE SCALIA: If you can’t answer that, I think Justice Breyer can. But I would like to know what comparison —
JUSTICE BREYER: He doesn’t actually have the right to ask me questions.
(Laughter.)
JUSTICE SCALIA: I don’t. That’s — that’s exactly true. But —
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Very much true. Counsel, why don’t you try and answer?

Related posts

• Time to Update the Resume (April 29, 2009)
• The Weeks Ahead (April 12, 2009)
• Reflections on my First Live Oral Arguments – Ricci v. DeStefano (April 25, 2009)

OT06 was considered a particularly contentious term, but you don’t see that from the number of media advisories. I’m surprised not to see advisories for cases like Hein, Ledbetter, and Morse from OT06 and Medellin from OT07.

I’d have to know more about the procedure for issuing these advisories before I draw any other conclusions, but the numbers are pretty interesting.

Related posts

• The Weeks Ahead (April 12, 2009)
• Supreme Court will reargue Citizens United (June 29, 2009)
• Supreme Court Oral Argument Tussle Gets Serious (October 11, 2008)

Here are the total number of cases argued for the most notable advocates:

SG:
Edwin S. Kneedler – 5
     -Kneedler has argued more cases than anyone else currently practicing. His tally is now at an astonishing 105, which is second amongst all living people. Lawrence Wallace, who retired from the SG’s office in 2003, has argued 157.
Malcolm L. Stewart – 5
     -Not sure what his tally is, but I know that he argued a case in 1995 for the US as amicus curiae. Not sure about his specific tally, but it is definitely >40.
Michael R. Dreeben – 4
     -Dreeben is another lifer in the SG’s office. I have records of his arguments for the SG as far back as 1989. His tally is almost certainly >80.
Gregory G. Garre – 4
Lisa S. Blatt – 3
Deanne E. Maynard – 3
     -Relatively new addition to the SG’s core of SCOTUS advocates, argued first case in 2005
Curtis E. Gannon – 2
Douglas Hallward-Driemeier – 2
Neal K. Katyal – 2
     -Argued and won Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Professor at GULC
Eric D. Miller – 2
Matthew D. Roberts – 2
Pratik A. Shah – 2

Private:
Theodore B. Olson – 6
     -Argued Bush v. Gore for Bush, also served as Bush’s first SG. Argued two cases during March sitting. Tally is currently >50. Co-Chair of appellate practice group at Gibson Dunn.
Carter G. Phillips – 6
     -Filed influential military amicus brief in Grutter. Current tally is 65. Partner at Sidley Austin.
David C. Frederick – 3
     -To be quite honest, I had never heard his name until now. Read his bio here. Apparently he worked in the SG’s office for a while.
Thomas C. Goldstein – 3
     -Rising star of SCOTUS bar, runs SCOTUSblog, sat second chair to Boies and Tribe in Bush v. Gore
Seth P. Waxman – 3
     -SG for the last 2 years of the Clinton Administration, head of Wilmer Hale appellate practice
Gregory S. Coleman – 2
     -Former Texas SG, will argue two of the term’s biggest cases on consecutive Wednesdays. I had lunch with him a few weeks ago and we talked about the two cases.
Christopher J. Meade – 2
     -Partner at Wilmer Hale under Waxman and Stevens clerk ’97. I’d consider him a rising star on the bar
Maureen E. Mahoney – 2
Andrew L. Frey – 1
     -Frey has argued 64 cases, which is, according to his bio, more than anyone else currently serving in private practice
Kathleen M. Sullivan – 1
     -Former dean of Stanford Law School, current professor at SLS. Famously failed bar exam on first try and once described by Lawrence Tribe as “the most extraordinary student I had ever had.” She was reportedly on the shortlist for Kagan’s SG position and is often considered a leading contender for a SCOTUS seat. Partner at Quinn Emmanuel.

Related posts

• Time to Update the Resume (April 29, 2009)
• The Weeks Ahead (April 12, 2009)
• Reflections on my First Live Oral Arguments – Ricci v. DeStefano (April 25, 2009)

Related posts

• Reflections on my First Live Oral Arguments – Ricci v. DeStefano (April 25, 2009)
• The Weeks Ahead (April 12, 2009)
• Kagan to Split Time with Waxman in Citizens United (July 24, 2009)

For an excellent example of a counsel who was intimately familiar with her client’s business, see the transcript of argument in United States v. Flores-Montano, 541 U. S. 149 (2004). The case dealt with the searching of vehicle gas tanks by customs agents at an international border. Government counsel had a total grasp of why and how the agents conducted the searches and provided convincing explanations to all questions posed by the Court.

The arguments of Lisa Blatt in US v. Flores-Montano can be found here. Arguments in that case were very technical and Ms. Blatt answered all of the questions with confidence. Ms. Blatt still works at the SG’s office and has argue two cases this term, most recently on March 31, 2009.

The Court also referenced another case in the same question but never cited the case. Does anyone know the name of the case?

Know your client’s business. One counsel representing a large beer brewing corporation was asked the following by a Justice during argument: “What is the difference between beer and ale?” The question had little to do with the issues, but the case involved the beer brewing business. Counsel gave a brief, simple, and clear answer that was understood by everyone in the Courtroom. He knew the business of his client, and it showed. The Justice who posed the question thanked counsel in a warm and gracious manner.

Any ideas?

Related posts

• Time to Update the Resume (April 29, 2009)
• The Weeks Ahead (April 12, 2009)
• Reflections on my First Live Oral Arguments – Ricci v. DeStefano (April 25, 2009)

Opinions published going into April sitting:

The reason for the increase in early opinions is that the court intentionally front-loaded its docket. With a front-loaded docket, the justices can more easily get opinions out early before the inevitable June rush.

April also brings the last two weeks of oral arguments. As noted by SCOTUSblog, the Solicitor General’s office will be participating in nine out of ten arguments during the two week sitting. Elena Kagan has yet to argue any cases for the United States and court watchers will be very curious to see which case she chooses as her first. Originally, al-Marri v. Bush was also scheduled for the term, but it was dismissed several weeks ago.

Sometime next week the court will release a hearing list that formally recognizes the attorneys slated to argue each case. It will be interesting to see which cases are assigned to the most senior advocates (Kagan, Edwin Kneedler, Neal Katyal) and which arguments are given to lower-ranking members (Michael Dreeben, Malcolm Stewart, Lisa Blatt, Matthew Roberts, William Jay, Toby Heytens, Eric Miller, Deanne Maynard) in order to decrease the burden on each individual advocate.

Aside from the SG, I’m not at all sure which advocates will be participating in the April sitting. Gregory Coleman from Austin, Texas will be arguing in both Ricci v. DeStefano and Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder on Wednesdays, April 22 and April 29, respectively. Thomas Goldstein will be arguing in Horne v. Flores on Monday, April 20. Seth Waxman will likely be arguing in Cuomo v. The Clearing House Association on Tuesday, April 28.

I will be traveling to Washington to hear arguments in Ricci v. DeStefano, the case in which I filed my first amicus brief.

Related posts

• Reflections on my First Live Oral Arguments – Ricci v. DeStefano (April 25, 2009)
• Time to Update the Resume (April 29, 2009)
• Nearly Final Term Statistics and Advocate Scorecard (June 29, 2009)

Once again, Justice Scalia comes in as the most talkative and averages 21 comments per hour of arguments. That shouldn’t surprise many people as he has always been known to be a particularly vocal member of the court. Justice Thomas still hasn’t spoken since February 22, 2006. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Breyer both average about 18 comments per case. On the other side of the spectrum, Justice Alito spoke an average of only 5 times per case. Justices Stevens, Kennedy, and Ginsburg spoke with similar frequency at 12, 11, and 10 times per argument, respectively.

This chart covers the difference between Justices’s overall speaking average and their average per individual court. I’ve highlighted the times when justices had variations of greater than 5 in either direction. I was particularly surprised to see that Ninth Circuit Cases had very little effect on justices, and, if anything, they actually spoke slightly less than usual.

When more cases start coming down, I’ll be interested to see what effect speaking frequency has on voting. Does Justice Kennedy speak more when he votes in favor of a case? Do Justices Stevens or Scalia speak more when they think a case will come down 5-4? With only 2 cases decided on merit thus far, its hard to say at this point but I’ll keep track of the decisions as they come down and post when I’ve collected enough data for some basic analysis.

You can find the data in these formats: xls, numbers, and, of course, pdf. Feel free to play with the data and let me know what conclusions you come up with!

Related posts

• Updated Humor Statistics (March 7, 2008)
• Supreme Introductions (December 20, 2008)
• Methodology 101 (July 1, 2007)

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: We will hear argument next in Case 07-1125, Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee. Mr. Rothfeld.
MR. ROTHFELD: Thank you. If it please the Court:
The court of appeals in this case — excuse me, Your Honor.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Could you raise the podium?
MR. ROTHFELD: Actually, I have never used this before, so it’s a learning experience for me, Your Honor.
JUSTICE STEVENS: That’s enough.
MR. ROTHFELD: Okay.
JUSTICE STEVENS: We can’t see you.
MR. ROTHFIELD: That — that may be an advantage, Your Honor.
(Laughter.)
JUSTICE GINSBURG: But we can hear you.

Again:

JUSTICE SCALIA: …That is an important question. It’s why we took the case. Why can’t we decide that issue and then for all these loose ends, send it back to the court of appeals?
MS. HODGE: Because there must be an issue in controversy for this Court to send any — there must be an issue in controversy here and also —
JUSTICE SCALIA: He says there is an issue in controversy, that’s good enough for me.
(Laughter.)

In Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc.:

JUSTICE BREYER: But to be honest about it, I would have to say the reason it isn’t available is quite — it isn’t available for minimizing the — the harm — that particular adverse impact which is killing a — a water animal. The reason it isn’t is because it doesn’t kill any water animals. Well, let me be honest; it kills one, or it kills two —
MR. LAZARUS: But —
JUSTICE BREYER: Or it kills three, and don’t tell me de minimis, because as soon as you say de minimis, I’m going to add one, okay?
(Laughter.)

Again:

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, if you get to that money in the bank, does this mean that best technology available changes over time? I mean, maybe the industry could have borne these costs two years ago, but they probably can’t today. Nobody has money in the bank today.
(Laughter.)

Again:

JUSTICE BREYER: And the — the question I have from your point of view is the — the obverse question: if you look at this particular cost-benefit analysis, I mean, it goes through all these things which, they don’t know what the numbers are, nobody knows what the values of the fishes are, which 98% are never even eaten, they are fast swimmers or whatever.
(Laughter.)

Related posts

• Oral Argument Stats Posted (December 12, 2008)
• Unity Defined (June 11, 2007)
• Supreme Introductions (December 20, 2008)

JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Bress, I want to apologize to you for accusing you of not printing 2254(d) and (e) in your brief. You indeed did.
MR. BRESS: Well, thank you, Your Honor. I thought —
JUSTICE SCALIA: I’m grateful for your not throwing it in my teeth.

More on the event here.

Related posts

• Oral Argument Stats Posted (December 12, 2008)
• Oral Argument Jokes of the Day (December 2, 2008)
• Court Hears Arguments in Sleeper Exclusionary Rule Case (October 9, 2008)

The town’s lawyer, Joseph S. Larisa, Jr., who has been involved with the case for more than a decade, said he agreed to Olson’s selection after William K. Suter, the Court’s clerk, called counsel at 11 a.m. Friday. “He said the Court gave us one hour to decide, or all argument time would be forfeited,” Larisa recounted. At that point, he said, he agreed to Olson’s selection, in return for being seated as co-counsel with Olson in the courtroom on Monday.

Related posts

• The Weeks Ahead (April 12, 2009)
• Supreme Court will reargue Citizens United (June 29, 2009)
• Supreme Court Oral Argument Tussle Gets Serious (October 11, 2008)

Recommended listens: Announcement of Boumediene v. Bush and Oral Arguments in Danforth v. Minnesota.

Related posts

• Time to Update the Resume (April 29, 2009)
• The Weeks Ahead (April 12, 2009)
• Supreme Court will reargue Citizens United (June 29, 2009)