Adam Liptak’s latest “Sidebar” column discusses the changing nature of Supreme Court oral arguments:
If you didn’t know it was a Supreme Court argument, you might think you were seeing a catastrophically overbooked cable television show. The justices of late have been jostling for judicial airtime in a sort of verbal roller derby. . . .
“Twenty-five years ago, Supreme Court watchers advanced the view that oral arguments enabled justices to signal one another about their view of a case,” said [author Stephen] Wermiel, a co-author of a recent biography of Justice William J. Brennan Jr. “But there are arguments today which seem more like sparring among the justices than signaling.” . . .
Something important is being lost in these rapid-fire exchanges, Mr. Wermiel said.
“A lawyer arguing a case may be only a few words into answering a multipart question from one justice before another justice interrupts to take the argument in a different direction entirely,” he said. “Some arguments now more closely resemble a Ping-Pong match than a dialogue or conversation.”