Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : AL GORE FOR PRESIDENT! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Carolyn who wrote (57)	11/21/2000 10:19:35 AM
From: mph	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 119

The way the argument was conducted is not unlike any argument in an appellate court. Justices typically interrupt and direct counsel to focus on the dispositive issues. They really don't want a re-hashing of briefs and background. There is limited time for oral argument and they want to get to the heart of the matter, focusing on the issues that will control the outcome. I've argued in appellate courts many times, though seldom in such contentious circumstances. :-) That being said, here is my observation. Two of the justices were overtly hostile to the lawyers representing the Republican point of view. It's one thing for a judge to have a fit of pique if his/her question is not directly answered, etc., or to engage in an escalating discussion, but these two were advocates and appeared angry. JMO. The most difficult problem facing the court is what they can do without appearing to be judicial activists; i.e., they have to interpret the law and not create it. That will be a challenge here.