I wonder why courts don't do "oral argument" by interrogatories. There are clearly tmes when a court wants more information on a subject, but it seems like often the better way to get that information is to ask the question and give the litigants time to submit supplemental briefs on that issue. I've only ever encountered that once in an RI trial court. But even that was after oral argument.
Courts of Appeals will do that sometimes, and SCOTUS rarely (such as when a totally new issue comes up and they set a case for reargument, e.g., Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum).
But not nearly enough and certainly not to answer basic questions the justices might have. Instead, the Court insists on full blown, costly oral arguments to clear stuff up.
Perhaps even 5% is enough to warrant the spending, especially when it's a 5-4 or 6-3 split. I think most firms and clients would gladly pay that, given the power the court has.
And it's probably still much cheaper than congressional lobbying!
I wonder why courts don't do "oral argument" by interrogatories. There are clearly tmes when a court wants more information on a subject, but it seems like often the better way to get that information is to ask the question and give the litigants time to submit supplemental briefs on that issue. I've only ever encountered that once in an RI trial court. But even that was after oral argument.
Courts of Appeals will do that sometimes, and SCOTUS rarely (such as when a totally new issue comes up and they set a case for reargument, e.g., Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum).
But not nearly enough and certainly not to answer basic questions the justices might have. Instead, the Court insists on full blown, costly oral arguments to clear stuff up.
Perhaps even 5% is enough to warrant the spending, especially when it's a 5-4 or 6-3 split. I think most firms and clients would gladly pay that, given the power the court has.
And it's probably still much cheaper than congressional lobbying!