AnalPhilosopher

I get a kick out of Linda Greenhouse's New York Times reports about oral arguments before the United States Supreme Court. See here, for example. She thinks that what is said by the justices during oral argument provides a clue as to how they will vote. That's risible. First, some justices don't ask questions during oral argument. Second, some justices play devil's advocate during oral argument. Third, some justices like to put attorneys through their paces. Fourth, some justices haven't made up their minds by the time of oral argument, so they're merely exploring issues. I'm not saying there's no point to reports such as these, but trying to predict how the justices will vote based on what they say during oral argument is silly, like trying to predict the future by consulting tea leaves.