|
From the NY Times: Many judicial experts said the oral arguments were probably more of an intellectual exercise for the judges than a quest for new information. Even before calling the hearing for today, the judges read a series of briefs submitted by the two sides, as well as several other interested parties, that laid out the main arguments of the case.
Many of the experts said the judges would not have convened today's hearing, which required nine of them to travel to San Francisco from out of state, unless they intended put the election back on track.
"I don't think the oral arguments will change anybody's mind," said Peter Keane, dean of the Golden Gate University School of Law. "Many of them accepted the case in order to go ahead and change the decision. I think that will be the upshot of it."
|