Originally Posted by speedrrracer
On the subject of winning...do you feel that there's any "tell" from a judges tone, choice of timing on interruptions of counsel, and questions to counsel as to how they lean politically / personally?
If so, did you witness any of that during these orals?
At SCOTUS, it was pretty clear who was going to vote no incorporation in McDonald v. Chicago, the "Heller 5" were less easy to read which makes me think that they were actually impartial and ruling on the merits of the case.
To me that means if the judges ask stupid questions and seem to enjoy listening to the anti-gun lawyer talk about how bad guns are, they are going to vote against us. If they ask questions about the law, scrutiny and historical meaning of the second amendment, I get optimistic but at the reversible 9'th, I never know what to think.
The orals seemed to go well but the briefs are what counts and I've read briefs that sound like a slam dunk wind up losing so I don't know what to think there either.