Justices use oral argument questions to test and stress-test attorneys’ positions.

Evidence

Lawyers soon discover that oral argument is not an opportunity to make a set speech. The justices pepper the attorneys with questions, testing the soundness of the legal positions they are advancing. These questions frequently force attorneys to confront weaknesses in their arguments or to clarify the implications of the positions they are urging on the Court. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 938

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Oral argument functions as sustained judicial questioning that tests an attorney’s legal position — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1550; Oral argument functions as the justices’ focused interrogation, not a set speech — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1550; Oral argument can reframe a case in ways written briefs cannot — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1552 (+1 more)

Broader Connections

• Oral argument functions as sustained judicial questioning that tests an attorney’s legal position #corroborates (0.97) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1550
• Oral argument functions as the justices’ focused interrogation, not a set speech #corroborates (0.92) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1550
• Oral argument can reframe a case in ways written briefs cannot #expands (0.78) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1552
• Lawyers deliberately seek test-case communities to litigate novel discrimination theories. #qualifies (0.72) — Luke W. Cole and Sheila R. Foster, From the Ground Up, 454