Balkinization
an unanticipated consequence of
Jack M. Balkin
Pages
▼
Monday, November 14, 2011
Calling Daniel Webster
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.
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
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!
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.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe 1976 death penalty cases comes to mind -- you had a handful of laws there and something like that.
ReplyDeleteThe 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
ReplyDeleteI was not aware that the hours were so short in this line of work.
ReplyDeleteFunnily enough, I also reached for the Daniel Webster analogy in contemplating the Court's decision to grant 5.5 hours of oral argument --
ReplyDeletehttp://justenrichment.com/2011/11/14/5-5-hours-of-argument-time/
Paul Clement is the new Daniel Webster
ReplyDeleteIs mls':
ReplyDelete"Paul Clement is the new Daniel Webster"
comparative to the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850?
Or perhaps to the Charles River Bridge case?
Nah, i just thought I would say it and see what kind of reaction I got
ReplyDeleteArizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (1963), had about twenty two hours of oral arguments. Id. at 551.
ReplyDeletemls':
ReplyDelete"Nah, i just thought I would say it and see what kind of reaction I got"
might be a tad DEVIL-ish.
There are a few leading SC advocates today and Clement is one of them.
ReplyDeleteWebster, 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!
A vid of our "modern day Webster" debating our "modern day [Story?]" can be found here:
ReplyDeletehttp://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.