Dan Epps

Okay. but I do think it's a natural side effect of the four to grant rule that you could I mean so because if you have five to some earlier verse and the four say fine we're going to make you sit through the oral argument and the five are like oh that's a pain but it's sort of annoying for everybody you could see how then you would

Okay. but I do think it's a natural side effect of the four to grant rule that you could I mean so because if you have five to some earlier verse and the four say fine we're going to make you sit through the oral argument and the five are like oh that's a pain but it's sort of annoying for everybody you could see how then you would

I guess what I mean is you could see how it would emerge as an equilibrium, that the four – it's sort of like a chicken. The four would – their preference is to deny, but they can't do that, so they punish the majority by making them – Sit through an argument in a tedious case that they regard as backbound. Those arguments are now like three hours long. And there's no time limits anymore.

I guess what I mean is you could see how it would emerge as an equilibrium, that the four – it's sort of like a chicken. The four would – their preference is to deny, but they can't do that, so they punish the majority by making them – Sit through an argument in a tedious case that they regard as backbound. Those arguments are now like three hours long. And there's no time limits anymore.

Sufficiently waste everybody's time if you're the majority, but then as the majority, you might say, fine, we will just agree as a matter of custom, not to usually summarily reverse the only five. because we recognize that then we'll have to sit through the argument and that's a waste of time. That's possible.

Sufficiently waste everybody's time if you're the majority, but then as the majority, you might say, fine, we will just agree as a matter of custom, not to usually summarily reverse the only five. because we recognize that then we'll have to sit through the argument and that's a waste of time. That's possible.

It is different. I mean, they were longer in the 19th century.

It is different. I mean, they were longer in the 19th century.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah. I mean, I think it's – that's my impression as well. I'm not sure exactly what I'd compare it to. I do think the number of really terrible advocates has gone down.

Yeah. I mean, I think it's – that's my impression as well. I'm not sure exactly what I'd compare it to. I do think the number of really terrible advocates has gone down.

Right. And I assume that's a combination of – Fewer merits cases mean the number of excellent advocates who are your case for free goes up. There's always true in some cases, but it used to be there were more positions or whatever where that was less true.

Right. And I assume that's a combination of – Fewer merits cases mean the number of excellent advocates who are your case for free goes up. There's always true in some cases, but it used to be there were more positions or whatever where that was less true.

I think 20 years ago, not in every case, not if you had, like if it was the, it was the wrong side of some, it was the plaintiff side of some issue where a lot of the usual suspects who are at big firms would have a, you know, a business conflict, even if not a real conflict. I think people weren't, weren't necessarily beating your door down and there weren't as many exporter clinics. Yeah.

I think 20 years ago, not in every case, not if you had, like if it was the, it was the wrong side of some, it was the plaintiff side of some issue where a lot of the usual suspects who are at big firms would have a, you know, a business conflict, even if not a real conflict. I think people weren't, weren't necessarily beating your door down and there weren't as many exporter clinics. Yeah.

But I also think that there must have just been a learning among the clients that this is the thing that you should expect. And thus, even when inexperienced lawyers want to keep the case, I think they're pressured to moot the case a bunch, to consult with people who know some of their practice has probably gone up. So I just think there's been – it's good.

But I also think that there must have just been a learning among the clients that this is the thing that you should expect. And thus, even when inexperienced lawyers want to keep the case, I think they're pressured to moot the case a bunch, to consult with people who know some of their practice has probably gone up. So I just think there's been – it's good.

Yeah, I think so. I think this is the first of the Supreme Court kind of Trump shadow docket cases, right? First.

Yeah, I think so. I think this is the first of the Supreme Court kind of Trump shadow docket cases, right? First.