First off, I read The Seven-Percent-Solution by Nicholas Meyer (I'm sorry -- "edited by" since the conceit is that it is from an unpublished John Watson manuscript), which explains those mystery years where Holmes disappeared after supposedly being killed. Turns out, Watson tricked him into going to get treatment for his cocaine addiction from Sigmund Freud and along the way they got mixed into a caper. It later was made into a film.
As a whole, it was good, but some rough going and the treatment is rather quick. The adventure climax is a bit hard to take seriously, but guess it might work good in the film version. Meyer was involved in Time After Time and more than one Star Trek film. In the Acknowledgements, Harriet Pipel's name same up. She's best known for her ACLU/abortion rights related work. One more little surprise find that overlaps worlds.
===
There will be more oral arguments this week and opinions on Thursday, but first thing -- orders at 9:30 as usual after a conference the previous Friday. Two grants, one that will help deal with the reach of the non-unanimous jury opinion, there being many people in prison in the two states (put aside Puerto Rico, which again is rarely referenced) who were convicted by a less than unanimous jury. This was a major red flag for the dissenters in the case. The other case involves the Anti-Injunction Act and can have fairly broad reach in an economic sense as well. Various other odds and ends, one petition rejected was not considered by Sotomayor for some unknown reason. A pending House bill might help address that.
The bigger news is that today was the first day of live streaming what amounts to oral argument by conference call. With a few minor glitches, nothing really much of note, it went off rather well. C-SPAN and others allowed the general public to hear audio and not wait until Friday when such things are generally released. Usually, news organizations could show up (including in a nearby room to hear the audio feed), but the Big V shut that down. So, instead of just giving special access to the media, we all got to listen. I'm not really too upset if I have to wait even a few days for oral audio, but by 2020 -- especially since many places now have video -- it is really time to have live streaming.
The actual oral argument involved trademark rules regarding Booking.com and many people would sort of miss the specifics. After the oral argument was over, there was a panel discussion on C-SPAN. I think it would have been better if we had a summary beforehand, not just someone generally talking about the oral arguments on the Washington Journal episode. This after all is the first time this is happening ever and a few more people are listening anyway because they are home when they would not otherwise be. And, the question is basic if technical.
I surely wasn't that clear about the specifics beforehand, only glancing over the preview on SCOTUSBlog (which has a lot of material including video for schools tied to these argument). So, I was mostly paying attention to the basic set-up, including each justice by seniority having one round of questions. Justice Thomas, who has voiced distaste at the free for all usual oral argument method, actually asked questions. Justice Breyer seemed chipper (wished people "good morning") and the second time asked one of his long (four criteria to cover!) questions. And, Lisa "Kavanugh Booster" Blatt was her usual over assured (the other side are morons basically) self.
As usual, the transcript of the oral argument was posted later in the day and you would not really know from it that it wasn't basically a normal oral argument except for the seriatim questioning. One tweet said that the court crier (Oyez Oyez etc.) slightly changed the usual bit since it wasn't actually happening in the courtroom -- something about "draw near" -- but Roberts etc. mostly pretended all was normal. Again, simply having Breyer say "good morning" -- which basically flagged things weren't just normal -- was notable. The most notable being Thomas asking questions.
People can now download SCOTUS oral arguments on Fridays and check the same day for transcripts. Livestream audio is a means for more people to listen (since you just have to go to CSPAN or whomever provides it) and also allows you to listen immediately. Again, normally, I do not know how time sensitive these oral arguments really are though for big cases, waiting to the end of the news will be somewhat problematic since the news will be somewhat stale (the "news" of oral arguments tend to be limited). It might be more important for certain people (including lawyers). And, it is good on principle. So, making this permanent is sensible.
Also, a basic thing about livestream is that you now can have live tweeting! One thing C-SPAN and other places, such as Court TV, that provides the audio should do is provide limited info during the oral argument such as reminding people what the case is about and other specifics (think Pop Up Video if not that detailed). C-SPAN included photos but did not provide one for the government lawyer. SCOTUSBlog has a court artist rendition on its website from a past case.
As to the specific situation, it is appreciated that the Supreme Court worked within the limits of the times and handled things smoothly. Roberts ("Chief") did a good job as traffic cop here. Other courts including the Michigan Supreme Court have provided video, but baby steps. And, once they take this one step, where is the stopping point?
===
A second day followed mostly like the first except we had two guys and did not have one of the "superadvocates" taking part (that is, one of those who pop up in lots of cases). From what I can see, including from legal types, the responses were very favorable. But, a longtime vet [Lyle Denniston] disagreed:
I do think it helpful to have "cross-bench exchanges," but in time, I think that would like develop in some form if they stuck with this format. OTOH, how often is that really done now? I also don't know how much "depth" was net harmed here. The regular format has its own problems there with certain justices dominating, constant interruptions harming the change to develop arguments and so forth. Encouraging each justice to ask questions (they can pass if they wish) probably benefits depth.
And, I have expressed my support in having Justice Thomas (in Tuesday's case, he is the sole justice in the previous case at issue that dissented though that didn't really come out in his questions) taking part. If this way helps, that too is a merit. So, for now, I disagree with LD, who after all a while back also supported the holding in Bush v. Gore.
As a whole, it was good, but some rough going and the treatment is rather quick. The adventure climax is a bit hard to take seriously, but guess it might work good in the film version. Meyer was involved in Time After Time and more than one Star Trek film. In the Acknowledgements, Harriet Pipel's name same up. She's best known for her ACLU/abortion rights related work. One more little surprise find that overlaps worlds.
===
There will be more oral arguments this week and opinions on Thursday, but first thing -- orders at 9:30 as usual after a conference the previous Friday. Two grants, one that will help deal with the reach of the non-unanimous jury opinion, there being many people in prison in the two states (put aside Puerto Rico, which again is rarely referenced) who were convicted by a less than unanimous jury. This was a major red flag for the dissenters in the case. The other case involves the Anti-Injunction Act and can have fairly broad reach in an economic sense as well. Various other odds and ends, one petition rejected was not considered by Sotomayor for some unknown reason. A pending House bill might help address that.
The bigger news is that today was the first day of live streaming what amounts to oral argument by conference call. With a few minor glitches, nothing really much of note, it went off rather well. C-SPAN and others allowed the general public to hear audio and not wait until Friday when such things are generally released. Usually, news organizations could show up (including in a nearby room to hear the audio feed), but the Big V shut that down. So, instead of just giving special access to the media, we all got to listen. I'm not really too upset if I have to wait even a few days for oral audio, but by 2020 -- especially since many places now have video -- it is really time to have live streaming.
The actual oral argument involved trademark rules regarding Booking.com and many people would sort of miss the specifics. After the oral argument was over, there was a panel discussion on C-SPAN. I think it would have been better if we had a summary beforehand, not just someone generally talking about the oral arguments on the Washington Journal episode. This after all is the first time this is happening ever and a few more people are listening anyway because they are home when they would not otherwise be. And, the question is basic if technical.
I surely wasn't that clear about the specifics beforehand, only glancing over the preview on SCOTUSBlog (which has a lot of material including video for schools tied to these argument). So, I was mostly paying attention to the basic set-up, including each justice by seniority having one round of questions. Justice Thomas, who has voiced distaste at the free for all usual oral argument method, actually asked questions. Justice Breyer seemed chipper (wished people "good morning") and the second time asked one of his long (four criteria to cover!) questions. And, Lisa "Kavanugh Booster" Blatt was her usual over assured (the other side are morons basically) self.
As usual, the transcript of the oral argument was posted later in the day and you would not really know from it that it wasn't basically a normal oral argument except for the seriatim questioning. One tweet said that the court crier (Oyez Oyez etc.) slightly changed the usual bit since it wasn't actually happening in the courtroom -- something about "draw near" -- but Roberts etc. mostly pretended all was normal. Again, simply having Breyer say "good morning" -- which basically flagged things weren't just normal -- was notable. The most notable being Thomas asking questions.
People can now download SCOTUS oral arguments on Fridays and check the same day for transcripts. Livestream audio is a means for more people to listen (since you just have to go to CSPAN or whomever provides it) and also allows you to listen immediately. Again, normally, I do not know how time sensitive these oral arguments really are though for big cases, waiting to the end of the news will be somewhat problematic since the news will be somewhat stale (the "news" of oral arguments tend to be limited). It might be more important for certain people (including lawyers). And, it is good on principle. So, making this permanent is sensible.
Also, a basic thing about livestream is that you now can have live tweeting! One thing C-SPAN and other places, such as Court TV, that provides the audio should do is provide limited info during the oral argument such as reminding people what the case is about and other specifics (think Pop Up Video if not that detailed). C-SPAN included photos but did not provide one for the government lawyer. SCOTUSBlog has a court artist rendition on its website from a past case.
As to the specific situation, it is appreciated that the Supreme Court worked within the limits of the times and handled things smoothly. Roberts ("Chief") did a good job as traffic cop here. Other courts including the Michigan Supreme Court have provided video, but baby steps. And, once they take this one step, where is the stopping point?
===
A second day followed mostly like the first except we had two guys and did not have one of the "superadvocates" taking part (that is, one of those who pop up in lots of cases). From what I can see, including from legal types, the responses were very favorable. But, a longtime vet [Lyle Denniston] disagreed:
He rather have things settle on briefs than such "argument" (dismissive). Well. I'm not really in agreement though I think you probably can flag some concerns -- I'm open to them at least. I don't think the Chief Justice was given much "arbitrary" power here. I don't think it really increased "wool-gathering" (blather), technology is not triumphing in any negative fashion and to the degree it looks "amateurish," that too is unclear really.Likely I have heard far more arguments over 62 years, and I disagree. This harms equal status of each Justice, gives the CJ arbitrary power, diminishes cross-bench exchanges, promotes wool-gathering by lawyers, prizes order over depth, lets technology triumph, looks amateurish.
I do think it helpful to have "cross-bench exchanges," but in time, I think that would like develop in some form if they stuck with this format. OTOH, how often is that really done now? I also don't know how much "depth" was net harmed here. The regular format has its own problems there with certain justices dominating, constant interruptions harming the change to develop arguments and so forth. Encouraging each justice to ask questions (they can pass if they wish) probably benefits depth.
And, I have expressed my support in having Justice Thomas (in Tuesday's case, he is the sole justice in the previous case at issue that dissented though that didn't really come out in his questions) taking part. If this way helps, that too is a merit. So, for now, I disagree with LD, who after all a while back also supported the holding in Bush v. Gore.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!