Thursday, May 01, 2025

It's Law Day!

 So why not post this heated exchange from the Supreme Court (here's the whole oral argument) earlier this week (via Law&Crime):


“I had an out of body experience listening to what we argued,” Blatt said of the arguments made by opposing counsel, Roman Martinez, who argued on behalf of the child and Assistant to the Solicitor General Nicole Reaves, who argued in support of the child on behalf of the Department of Justice.


Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson interjected, “I’m over here really trying to figure out what you argued below,” and said that it “might be a little unfair” to characterize Blatt’s argument as entirely consistent throughout the litigation.

Blatt pushed back and denied any inconsistency.

“What is a lie and inaccurate is that we ever said that this court should take the same language and should define it differently,” Blatt said, referring to an argument advanced earlier by the DOJ. “They’re adding words to our mouth.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch interrupted Blatt’s rant.

“You believe Mr. Martinez and the Solicitor General are lying?” asked an incredulous Gorsuch.

“In oral argument? Yes, absolutely,” answered Blatt.

As Blatt tried to elaborate, Gorsuch cut in, with a warning.

“I think you should be more careful with your words,” the justice said.

“Okay well they should be more careful in mischaracterizing a position by an experienced advocate of the Supreme Court, with all due respect,” countered Blatt.

Chief Justice John Roberts jumped in and began to read from A.J.T.’s brief in an apparent attempt to provide context for the inconsistency her opponents had referenced.

“That part we never said,” Blatt interrupted, questioning a portion of the brief that quoted her client’s filing. “Are they quoting?”

“Well, they have quote marks around it,” responded the chief justice to a chuckling courtroom.

Later in the argument:

“Well, it’s part of your job, Justice Kavanaugh, to set the law sometimes and I understand it’s easier for you and you have a lot going on not to set the law,” Blatt charged until she was shut down by Gorsuch, who interjected that he was “still troubled” by the suggestion that opposing counsel “lied.”

“Okay, let’s pull it up here,” was Blatt’s quick retort.

Gorsuch requested that Blatt “reconsider that phrase.”

“People make mistakes,” came Gorsuch’s response, sounding calm. “You can accuse people of making mistakes — but lying,”

“That’s fine,” Blatt interrupted repeatedly.

“Ms. Blatt, if I might finish,” said an exasperated Gorsuch. “Lying is another matter.”

Gorsuch next read from Blatt’s brief as Blatt peppered with interruptions of, “yep,” and “right” several times.

When Blatt tried to interrupt again and continue her argument, Gorsuch snapped, “I’m not finished.” The justice went on to ask that while reasonable people could disagree, couldn’t the argument in Blatt’s brief could be interpreted in precisely the way opposing counsel had characterized it in their comments to the bench?

“No,” said Blatt, then tried to continue.

“Ms. Blatt!” interrupted an audibly annoyed Gorsuch.

After a bit more exchange, Gorsuch finally demanded that Blatt withdraw her previous accusations of lying against opposing counsel — which Blatt finally did.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Shouldn't accuse a lawyer of lying, why put a judge in the position of having to make that call...twisting evidence, misconstruing, and a whole bunch of euphemisms...but sreiously...it is about time a lawyer went up there an gave it to them and was passionate. What the judges should have been doing is going after the lawyer who twisted the arguments previously made to try and better their position. Lying or not, that is not honest and their focus should be on that person, not the one who calls them out on it.

Anonymous said...

But would this be an issue at all; would this post exist if it were Mr. Blatt instead of Ms.? I have doubts.

Anonymous said...

This is why professionalism and civility is at an all-time low

Anonymous said...

I would say this post would not exist if a top SCOTUS advocate did not wrongly accuse another SCOTUS advocate of lying (one of the most serious charges you could levy against another attorney), and then continuously interrupt a SCOTUS Justice who was trying to point out that the accusation was unfounded by citing to actual portions of the record. But sure, let's make it about gender.

Anonymous said...

No leaks from the judges' meeting yet?

Anonymous said...

Yes, this post wouldn't exist if nothing happened to post about. Brilliant analysis. Still have doubts...

Anonymous said...

Shhh. Blondi Bondi may be listening!

Anonymous said...

The problem, Dude, is the lady calling the others liars was fucking wrong. She wasn't lying, but she sure didn't get it correct. A vulgar person would have said she was the one lying.