Eh... should we have more contempt for the amateur who stumbled on a cert-worthy issue, or for the egos of the so-called "Supreme Court bar"?

I wonder how the "step aside" conversation went.

Also, how much does the strength of this guy's briefing matter? Unlike the courts of appeals, the Supreme Court gets a ton of "help" from amici. In this case, the amici will probably recognize that the court might be as receptive to a de facto merits brief as it would be to the usual "background facts + polemic" brief.

Also, this guy should get a medal or a cookie or something if his catch phrase makes it into a court opinion or into the transcript: "race-conscious, hard-core, mechanical quota Student Assignment Plan of the JCPS."

THE COURT: Mr. Gordon, what might a "soft-core" version of the JCPS's Student Assignment plan entail? And would that be constitutional?

Arrogance. Vast majority of the legal profession is comprised of sole practitioners who wear suits from JC Penny. How many cases did the "experts" of the SCOTUS bar try the case that ultimately went to the Supreme Court?

I am sure the justices will be nice to him.

I have to say that I have more contempt for the egos of the Supreme Court bar.

As a federal clerk I read poor briefs every day. However, the Court and its clerks should be able to see the merits of Gordon's argument beyond any weakness in his drafting.

I don't know how Gordon received Meredith's case, but he was obviously sufficiently intelligent to take on the case and get it through the Sixth Circuit and to SCOTUS.

Many members of the SCOTUS bar are arrogant SOBs. Many first-timers do an excellent job arguing before the Court.

But after Teedy Gordon turned in a nine-page merits brief, in one of the most important cases of this Term, the Justices probably didn't feel great confidence in his advocacy skills.

The jabs on Sears and JCPenny suits are uncalled for. What gives people the right to riducule fellow members of the bar for their wardrobe choices? A $1K Brooks Brother suit doesn't make you a better advocate for your client. Shame on you.

And, everyone should remember that in the Ten Commandments cases, Chemerinsky lost and Friedman, a partner in a small 5 person, personal injury firm, won.

I'd be a little more outraged if the post wasn't tongue firmly planted in cheek. The SCt bar really DOES have an over-inflated sense of their own self-importance. And there are some solos who are pretty good (although Gordon's brief was about as bare-bones as it gets). Lighten up, Francis.

Remember that Lat was/is the fashion-obsessed "Article III Groupie" of Underneath Their Robes. How could we expect him NOT to snark on JC Penney suits?

I feel compelled to note that in my years as a federal appellate court clerk, I've seen some pretty crappy arguing by some pretty big names.

Brooks Brothers?!? Please! Any fashion conscious member of the SCt bar has his (or her!) suits handmade. That or Thom Browne.

Agreed with default - except that Thom Browne is too avant-garde to wear to the SCOTUS. If you walked to the podium with trousers so high that your socks were showing, people would snicker.

It sounds like we need an opinion from the DOJ's Office of Sartorial Counsel:

http://www.abovethelaw.com/2006/10/dfopalooza_the_farewell_brunch.php

Did anyone actually listen to the arguments. For once all of the stuck-up SOBs may have been right. This guy was a waste of time, either failing to understand or refusing to answer questions. It sounded like a half-awake Pat Buchanan was muttering talking points on a washed up talk show.

I didn't catch it, but really, so what? The SG got 15 minutes, the amicus briefs are there, and this case also has a companion case.... as well as a handful of justices who are sympathetic to this guy's position and have given the issue some thought.

I'll also reiterate that I'm curious about how the so-called "top advocates" approached this guy about taking the case off of his hands.

For once? The reason that experienced Supreme Court advocates recommend that certain lawyers let more experienced counsel handle cases is because they are, um, experienced and have seen many the only-timer fall flat on his face.

Also, Brooks Brothers or Burberry is pretty much de rigeur at the Supreme Court. The statement you want to make is "I am a competent and persuaive lawyer," not "My suit looks like it was made for Pee Wee Herman."

rtsp://video.c-span.org/archive/sc/sc120406_schools2.rm

Mr. Gordon's argument is right at the very beginning.

0 - 4:00 He begins with a trial lawyer opening. Justice Ginsburg tries to get a yes or no answer to a standing question. I don't think she gets it.

downhill from there.

5:15 to 6:39: Justice Ginsburg asks a second question... TG seems not to have a clue.

6:39 to 7:34 -- Souter brings up Justice Ginsburg's question again and cites Swann-Mecklenburg.

7:59 to 8:55 --Justice Souter and Scalia are talking to each other.

9:34 -- Justice Souter tells Gordon that what he's arguing supports the other side

9:47 to 11:07 Justice Breyer (who seems to be the only one with an echo effect on his microphone, which he seems to enjoy) rambles for a bit, concluding with the statement that Gordon still hasn't answered Justice Ginsburg's initial question and should do so now.

12:30 - 13:35 trial lawyer closing with interruptions from Ginsburg.

13:45 -- Clement starts. He's really good. Souter is more active than I've ever seen him. Also, Souter's New England accent comes through strongly with the "r" sounds that disappear from some words and reappear in others ("quotar").

25:00-28:50 -- Clement seems to be scoring points rather than just fending off arguments from Souter and Breyer.

28:50 - 55:50 -- Mellen's not bad.

55:55 to end -- Gordon is back for rebuttal. Doesn't seem too effective. Justice Kennedy interrupts to ask what he's talking about. Finish with Martin Luther King paraphrase, which Chief Justice Roberts interrupts when Gordon's time runs out.

After listening to the argument, the person who annoys me the most is Justice Breyer. He seems pretty full of himself, and his questions don't impress me much.

Souter, Ginsburg and Stevens seem to be onto something with this "hiding the ball point." It's the whole general question whether the Brown line of cases sets forth an anticlassification or an antisubordination principle... but I can't tell where any of the other justices stand.

"rtsp is not a registered protocol" error message when i try to cut/paste that cspan link. anyone know what hot to fix this?