"One point we didn't initially mention is that the issue that had intrigued a number of legal commentators is whether or not the court was interested in extending the precedent set in Lopez, which for the first time in many years constrained Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. Some have thought that this issue would be raised by analogy from the commerce clause to the copyright clause. The Chief Justice is the only one who raised the issue in a single question to Prof. Lessig. The question was oblique, and only implied the question, but Prof. Lessig recognized it and provided the appropriate answer, which seemed to please the Chief Justice. It was not raised by any other justice, nor was the Solicitor General provided a similar question. "

What the Supremes do in oral arguements is effectively "forensics" style debate. They are trying to pick both arguements apart and see how well they stand to scrutiny. Can they poke holes? Where do things break down?

I think they ought to webcast the supreme court. This system of only letting a limited number of people into the room and then only letting some of them take notes is just so antiquated it hurts. There is no need to protect the public from the commercial press if I can just turn on my damn TV and hear the arguements.

LawMeme: Live From Eldred v. Ashcroft