Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
Remaining silent means during orals means nothing to me. Really, is anyone's mind changed during oral arguments? Or is it just an opportunity for the judges to (a) show how smart they are or (b) get their kicks?
|
There was an interesting observation in a Post article about Roberts that some of the more aggressive questioning in recent years may be a result of Rehnquist's very streamlined conferences, during which he apparently discouraged extended discussion and debate of the cases. As a result, justices used oral argument as an outlet/alternative way to debate the merits. The article suggested that Roberts might run things a bit differently.
As for oral argument, I don't think you're right. While some judges use if for kicks or to show off, I think it can, especially in close cases (which most in the S. Ct. are) get at the things counsel for either side may have omitted.
I will admit, however, that oral argument is not always useful, although at least when I clerked (for ct. app.) the judges would sometimes just shut down the argument once it was clear one side didn't have an argument. (I recall one case where after the criminal defendant/appellant's lawyer argued, the U.S. Att'y stood up, gave a 2 minute introduction, and one of the judges said "Mr. __, I think we have a pretty good handle on this case, so if there is anything you think you haven't covered in the brief, we'd be happy to hear it." He thanked the court and waived the rest of his time. Affirmed.
