Opening the minds of Supreme Court Justices
Ezra Klein discusses the notion that the Supreme Court Justices are likely to be unmoved by the arguments that they hear today because they have already done exhaustive homework and have formed some reasonable analysis already. It is unlikely, Klein reasons, that the lawyers arguing today will be introducing anything new or persuasive that the justices have not already considered.
Ho hum, let the process play out.
The “arguments” are a part of the public education process and political theater.
In the end, to one voter here with one set of opinions, what matters is producing affordable healthcare for all Americans that is equal in access and quality and paid for by contributions from those who can pay at a level suitable to their means.
“Oral arguments are "the first time the Justices get to talk to each other about the case, so it can matter in terms of probing weaknesses and also getting a sense of what types of arguments one would need to deploy to get to five. In that sense it can matter a lot because you can begin to see what you need to do to move your colleagues."”