Oral argument can reframe a case in ways written briefs cannot

Evidence

According to Justice Antonin Scalia, “Things can be put in perspective during oral argument in a way that they can’t in a written brief.” In response to the justices’ questions, attorneys can correct misunderstandings, demonstrate unappreciated strengths in their po- sitions, and remove obstacles to the justices voting for their clients. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1552

Categorization

• QUESTION: The excerpt trails off mid-word in the source; worth chasing the full Scalia point in the original.
• XREF: connects to: Written interchange among appellate judges shapes and narrows final opinions — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 577; Justices use oral argument questions to test and stress-test attorneys’ positions. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 938; Legal briefs are advocacy documents rather than neutral presentations of law. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1536 (+14 more)

Broader Connections

• Oral argument functions as the justices’ focused interrogation, not a set speech #expands (1.00) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1550
• Oral codifications with a few words can successfully drive thematic investigation #exemplifies (0.90) — Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 389
• Orally delivered arguments tend toward superficiality of logic #responds-to (0.70)
• Lower appellate courts decide most appeals on briefs rather than oral argument #complicates (0.70) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1596
• Oral law’s lack of writing prevented codification and lawyerly authority #complicates (0.70) — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism, 254
• Effective trial advocacy rests on narrative persuasion rather than legal argument alone #complicates (0.70) — Tamara Lanier, From These Roots, 774
• Effective legal communication requires balancing clarity against condescension #complicates (0.70) — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 688
• Applying theory across cases as mere illustration can misrepresent the cases. #complicates (0.70) — Saba Mahmood, Politics of Piety, 1108
• Emphasis in theoretical exposition can itself shift or weaken an author’s argument #complicates (0.70) — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism, 346
• Some contested explanations cannot be settled by substantive argument #complicates (0.70) — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 381
• A scholarly book can sustain argument through allusion without inline citations #complicates (0.70)
• Legal language holds meaning across unforeseeable contexts through a promise-like indeterminacy #complicates (0.70)
• Valid legal analogies depend on relevant similarities rather than case quantities #complicates (0.70) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 343