Last week, I learned about another important aspect of studying the supreme court: oral arguments. I listened to audio recordings of the court discussing McRory v. Harris, a North Carolina Racial Gerrymandering case from earlier this year.
During oral arguments, lawyers for both the plaintiff and the defendant are given allotments of time to convince the judges that their sides are the most correct according to constitutional law and court precedent. The Justices interrupt sporadically to ask questions or express their opinions on certain arguments.
In McRory v. Harris, much of the discussion was based on precedent from an opinion written by Justice Kennedy. He interjected several times when the lawyers seemed to mischaracterize precedents he had set forth in the previous opinion.
Hearing these arguments provided interesting insights into how Justices make decisions and pick up ideas to put into their majority opinions.
No comments:
Post a Comment