re: Soltamayor is awful

CuckeyetheShrubber is on downvote duty in this thread.

ACB is music to the ears.

Oh damn... Kav asking if Obama should've been investigated for murder for the drone strikes

Just taking a step back and taking inventory. It is really, really weird to see the Justice Department of the executive branch argue for limitations on executive power. OMB has made these people insane.

Haven't had a chance to listen but we already know how KeeKee and the 2 lesbians are going to vote...but any insight into what the others are thinking based on questioning?

quote:

---

Justice Kaylani Prescott Angry Brown done made up her mind, girl. She ain’t taking no shite from no white man.

She sounded waaayyyyyyyy too personal. Like she was part of the prosecution.

---

Appellate courts are much different than trial courts.

The lawyers have already submitted their briefs on the issues. The justices (and their clerks) have already read and researched the law/argument before oral argument takes place. In the overwhelming majority of cases the justices have already decided how they are going to vote BEFORE the oral argument...or they are at least strongly leaning in one direction.

The lawyer already has his/her argument prepared. But it is rare that the lawyer ever gets to make their full argument. Most of the time the lawyer will argue only briefly before they are interrupted with a question from the bench. Sometimes the lawyer doesn't even get to start his argument before they get hit with questions. So for those angry that the justices are just interrupting the lawyers, just know that is pretty commonplace (not just at the USSC).

From the judge's perspective their questions are usually posed for a specific purpose:

1. They are confused or unsure about an issue/argument raised in the brief and want further clarification from the attorney. Or the judge wants reaffirmation of his/her position.

2. There was a debate about a certain issue/argument when the judges round-tabled the case and the judge wants to use the lawyer as a conduit to argue the judge's position to his fellow judges. In other words, the judge is planning to vote one way on the case and he's trying to convince his/her fellow judge's to join him in voting the same way by having the attorney argue the judge's position to the other judges.

Obviously Brown had decided how she is going to vote. She's using oral argument to try to sway some of her fellow judges to join in her position.

Kav is based....on occasion.

I am not sure that this is going to be too helpful for Trump. Trump's argument casts such a wide net. Granted, it is so wide it granted an audience with the Supreme Court.

quote:

---

I missed this. what was the Dreeben reply?

---

Not sure... was too busy doing this meme face

quote:

---

Lots of talk about remanding to a lower court. This bodes well for president Trump.

---

Why?