Here’s an interesting post over at Post (one of the new twitters) from Neal Katyal about his argument before the Supreme’s in Moore v. Harper:
I gave 1 interview about my Supreme Court oral argument in #MoorevHarper to Lawrence O’Donnell on @Msnbc, earlier this week. Without getting into case specifics, I tried to bring people behind the curtain into how I prepare to argue before 9 different Justices, and most important, how much other people helped in developing the points made at oral argument.
The “9 different courts” point is more nuanced than what a minute on TV can allow–it’s 9 different perspectives, to be sure, but there is also intersection among them (particularly in live oral argument). I find that the conversation among the 9 is often more important than the views of any 1 perspective, and sometimes I view my role as less of an “arguer” and more of an “interlocutor” facilitating a discussion among them.
A true privilege to orally argue this case, and to work with an incredible team, including of course the great @judgeluttig.post.
Very interesting. So much of this stuff is really about psychology and temperament. It’s kind of terrifying when you think about it. But nobody’s come up with anything that isn’t so I guess we’re stuck with it for now. It might be better if they had a few more justices, however, and they served something like 18 year terms instead of lifetime appointments. I think what makes everyone so desperate about a court with a strong majority that’s out of step with the country is that there just seems to be no end to it.
It’s Happy Hollandaise time here at Hullabaloo. If you’d like to throw a little something in the old Christmas stocking it would be most appreciated.