Originally Posted by bulgron
It doesn't really matter what happened at oral arguments. They are largely meaningless theater. What matters is the arguments in the briefs,...
I hope so, because the orals seemed really...unprofessional. I expected much more polished presentations, at least from Clement and Gura. I came away assuming they must not matter too much, glad to have some confirmation.
Not going out on any limbs there. Still, didn't it seem like the female judge was very pro-2A? Maybe it's not possible to determine a judges personal feeling from the questions they ask, when they interrupt counsel, etc, but if I were an anti, she would have worried me greatly.