Oral argument functions as the justices’ focused interrogation, not a set speech
Evidence
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 may force attorneys to confront weaknesses in their arguments or to clarify the implications of the positions they are urging. For an ill-prepared attorney, the half hour may seem a lifetime. But if oral argument can be harrowing, it also provides a unique opportunity. As Chief Justice William Rehnquist observed, “It is the only time before conference discussion of the case later in the week when all of the judges are expected to sit on the bench and concentrate on one particular case.” — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1550
Categorization
- XREF: connects to: Speech acts require being heard, not merely uttering — Donna Landry and Gerald MacLean, The Spivak Reader: Selected Works of…, 2309; Opinion-drafting dialogue among appellate judges shapes or narrows their collective decisions — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 577; Speech is fundamentally agonistic play, not mere communication — Jean-François Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on…, 142 (+2 more)
Broader Connections
- Speech acts require being heard, not merely uttering
#expands(0.85) — Donna Landry and Gerald MacLean, The Spivak Reader, 2309 - Speech is fundamentally agonistic play, not mere communication
#expands(0.85) — Jean-François Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition, 142 - Opinion-drafting dialogue among appellate judges shapes or narrows their collective decisions
#expands(0.82) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 577