Constitutional Law

SG and Texas SG move for argument

Sebastian of Snowflakes in Hell points out an interesting section of the Supreme Court docket:

Feb 11 2008 Motion of the Solicitor General for enlargement of time for oral argument, for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.

Feb 11 2008 Motion of Texas, et al. for leave to participate in oral argument as amici curiae and for divided argument, and, in the alternative, for enlargement of time for oral argument filed.

I'd interpret these as follows:

Solicitor General of the US would like to argue. Neither side was willing to give him time (you only get 30 minutes in the usual argument, and he's taking positions that are not pleasing to either side), so he wants argument with his own time allocation. Divided argument means, I assume, that two people will argue for the SG.

Texas SG's motion is more interesting. They want the same (without divided argument). My guess is that the minute they saw the US AG's move they whipped this motion out. Normally, if an amicus wants to argue the Court's going to say it's on time from the party they're supporting. But with the SG asking for its own time, Texas has a shot at this motion.

Full post as published by Of Arms and the Law on February 14, 2008 (boomark / email).