A case's oral arguments are an hour long, and are good for getting an idea of what are the legal implications of a specific case. I try to listen at least to those when trying to decide how I feel about a ruling.
Legal implications in the future play a big part in how cases end up being ruled, even if it seems like the "bad guys" win for a specific situation.
Kyllo V. US (Does using a thermal imaging device on your house consist of a search?) also has a lot of conversation that, when taken out of context, make Justices seem unaware of technical advances. But in context, you can see that these lines of questioning are more about pushing the reasoning to its limits : http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_8508
This case's:
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2012/2012_11_697
A case's oral arguments are an hour long, and are good for getting an idea of what are the legal implications of a specific case. I try to listen at least to those when trying to decide how I feel about a ruling.
Legal implications in the future play a big part in how cases end up being ruled, even if it seems like the "bad guys" win for a specific situation.
The unanimous ruling against buffer zones is one example of this : http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2013/2013_12_1168
Kyllo V. US (Does using a thermal imaging device on your house consist of a search?) also has a lot of conversation that, when taken out of context, make Justices seem unaware of technical advances. But in context, you can see that these lines of questioning are more about pushing the reasoning to its limits : http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_8508