Balkinization: Calling Daniel Webster

Calling Daniel Webster

Gerard N. Magliocca

I'm struck by the fact that there will 5 1/2 hours of oral argument on the Affordable Care Act! When was the last time a case got that much time? It's very 19th century.

Posted 12:19 PM by Gerard N. Magliocca [link]

Comments:

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Joe : 1:19 PM

The 1976 death penalty cases comes to mind -- you had a handful of laws there and something like that.

# posted by

Joe : 1:23 PM

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom still routinely holds day-long or several-day oral arguments in most of the cases that it hears. See, for example, http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/michaelmas_term_2011.pdf

# posted by

Perry Dane : 2:16 PM

I was not aware that the hours were so short in this line of work.

# posted by

jpk : 4:02 PM

Funnily enough, I also reached for the Daniel Webster analogy in contemplating the Court's decision to grant 5.5 hours of oral argument --

http://justenrichment.com/2011/11/14/5-5-hours-of-argument-time/

# posted by

Joshua Matz : 4:54 PM

Paul Clement is the new Daniel Webster

# posted by

mls : 7:53 PM

Is mls':

"Paul Clement is the new Daniel Webster"

comparative to the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850?

Or perhaps to the Charles River Bridge case?

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 8:56 PM

Nah, i just thought I would say it and see what kind of reaction I got

# posted by

mls : 9:14 PM

Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (1963), had about twenty two hours of oral arguments. Id. at 551.

# posted by

Jon : 9:51 PM

mls':

"Nah, i just thought I would say it and see what kind of reaction I got"

might be a tad DEVIL-ish.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 7:21 AM

There are a few leading SC advocates today and Clement is one of them.

Webster, however, was also a politician and public figure on that level, and Clement isn't a "Webster" in that fashion.

The original jurisdiction dispute cited by Jon might warrant an asterisk. That sort of case is of a somewhat different caliber than a usual dispute of the "this is a small college, sir, but we love it" affair. [I paraphrase] But, still, that's a good find!

# posted by

Joe : 8:41 AM

A vid of our "modern day Webster" debating our "modern day [Story?]" can be found here:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/11/evening-round-up-3/#more-132047

BTW, with all the discussion on the insurance requirement, it would be interesting if more people and blogs covered the other issues, especially the little talked about Medicaid issue.

# posted by

Joe : 8:46 AM