John Canuck
Well-Known Fanatic
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2011
- Messages
- 832
So much for this theory :|
It was confusing.
Our attorney got about four words out of his mouth and then the justices
started asking questions. Our attorney never got the chance to direct the
court to what he thought were the important issues and facts.
Their attorney was allowed to speak virtually without interruption.
Although, when their attorney tried to bring up materials that had never
been presented in the lower court, the court told the attorney that it was
improper for him to do that and the court made him stick to issues properly
preserved for appellate review.
Then, our attorney got up and was peppered with questions again.
A lawyer friend of mine told me years ago that many times the court will
make it harder on the side that the court eventually rules in favor of so
as to avoid accusations of favoritism. I sure hope that is the case.
Our attorneys told us afterwards that oral argument is only used to clarify
things, and that it is still the brief filed with the court that controls
matters. I sure hope that is the case, too.
So, we now have to wait.
Rob
I couldn't agree more. An effective lobby. We will all have to pull together and stop the bickering. That means getting an organization back up and following the laws and behaving in a manner that the membership agrees to, while following the laws of the state so the the whole doesn't look like a pact of wild animals preaching "Do as I say, Not as I do!"John Canuck said:Lets hope so. We need an effective lobby effort that is actually grass roots, rather than that other bunch.