E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
I listened today to the Supreme Court’s first ever telephonic oral argument, in USPTO v. Booking.com. It took me a few minutes to realize why the format, radically different from that normally in place, nonetheless seemed very familiar. It was because the session sounded just like a law school moot court competition: the rehearsed opening statements, possibly read from scripts (I heard some rustling); a small number of gentle questions delivered slowly as though to an audience hard of hearing; ample opportunity for counsel to answer; little by way of follow up; almost no interruptions; politeness through and through; and the judges taking turns. Casual listeners would have been impressed: so orderly! And learned a lot: in contrast to in-court arguments, following along today did not require having read the briefs in advance. We have nine more of these telephone arguments to go so perhaps the Justices will find their groove. But if this first case is indicative it is hard to imagine they will get much out of the telephone arguments—nothing, in any event, that they couldn’t find in the briefs. Still, it is an interesting experiment and the Court seems to have planned things quite well even if we are left wondering how the Chief Justice ever got stuck with operating the stopwatch. Posted
5:10 PM
by Jason Mazzone [link]