SCOTUS revises oral argument format ahead of blockbuster term

In advance of the new term set to begin in October, the Supreme Court announced Tuesday that it is revising its oral argument format, importing a system it employed when it held arguments over the phone after the courthouse doors were shut because of Covid.

While the Court will maintain the traditional practice of allowing justices to engage in questioning in no particular orderthe traditional free for allthere will now be an opportunity, once an attorney’s time has expired, for the justices to ask specific questions in order of seniority.
The hybrid system appears to be an attempt to blend together two approaches from the court’s recent history. The traditional format produced more lively hearingswith justices often interrupting each otherand advocates unable to always respond fulsomely. 때때로, justices seemed to be using the argument session to probe the positions of their colleagues, almost ignoring the attorney who was left on the sidelines with little opportunity to break in.
      When the justices asked questions in order of seniority during the height of Covid, the process was more stilted, but it had the advantage of giving a justice the opportunity to fully probe a line of inquiry. Sometimes the justices, after several questions without interruption, would forecast how they would eventually rule. 때때로, especially early on, Chief Justice John Roberts was left having to manage the process, calling on each justice to begin their questioning and sometimes cutting off a colleague if they went long. In later sessions, the justices seemed to do a better job of watching the clock and their allotted time.
        정당성 클라렌스 토마스who spent years rarely asking questions from the benchwas an active participant during the telephonic hearings, giving the public, who could listen via live audio, a much better sense of his jurisprudence and his personality. One case concerned so calledfaithless electors” — a member of the electoral college that does not vote for the candidate for whom they had pledged to vote.
        Thomas worried that a rogue electorwithout fear of penaltycould vote for anyone, including a hobbit.
          The elector,” 토마스가 말했다, “who had promised to vote for the winning candidate, could suddenly say, 알 잖아, I’m going to vote for Frodo BagginsI really like Frodo Baggins.The public, 소셜 미디어에서, reacted quickly to the Lord of the Rings reference.
            다른 경우, when a lawyer for the House of Representatives suggested that a subpoena for President Donald Trump’s financial records wouldn’t trigger a separation of powers concern, Thomas shot back. “I think we all know it’s about the President,” 그는 말했다.
            일반적으로, court watchers seemed to prefer the traditional systemeven though it could seem chaotic to the outside observer. Lyle Denniston, the dean of the Supreme Court press corps who is now mostly retired after covering the court for some 70 연령, tweeted that he missed therapturous joy of cross talk.

            댓글이 닫혀 있습니다..