Originally Posted by speedrrracer
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.
I don't put anything past the courts at this point. The orals in Kachalsky were very positive, and look at that abortion of a ruling that was passed down. I'm fairly confident that the more questions asked about the law the more the judges are just looking for holes to thread through or punt to the SCOTUS.