Transcript Of Oral Arguments: Fill & Download for Free

Here’s the full quote from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, courtesy of the Supreme Court’s transcript of the oral argument. The Justice spoke up during time allotted to Jeffrey B. Wall, a Deputy Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the U.S. government as an amicus to the case. Just before Justice Sotomayor’s question, Mr. Wall had been responding to some questions from Justice Gorsuch about the relief being sought by the plaintiffs.I'm sorry, can I go back to that question? In what other area, constitutional area, the First Amendment in particular, have we decided any case based solely on text, history, and tradition?This seems sort of a made-up new standard. And I thought Heller was very care — careful to say we don't do that. We treat [the Second Amendment] like any other constitutional provision. And if I analogize this to the First Amendment, which is what Heller suggested we should do, this seems to me to be a time, place, and manner restriction. It may not pass any of the standards of scrutiny, but, if you're looking at a First Amendment right to speak, it's never absolute. There are some words that are not protected. We're going to have a different fight about that at some point. Or there are some weapons that are not protected, just like there might be some words that are not protected.We know under the First Amendment that there are time, place, and manner restrictions that a government can impose on the basis of safety and other things. On the basis of safety, you can't have a demonstration at will. You need a permit, and you have to have certain equipment and certain protections and certain things.So, if I treat it in that way, we might have a fight about whether text, history, and tradition permits a time, manner, and place restriction of this type, but I don't know why that's a free-standing test.(Emphasis added).The sentence refers specifically to the U.S. Constitutional Law doctrine that the First Amendment is not quite absolute, that there are, in fact, occasions where the government may restrict speech. Those tend to be narrow, of course, but it’s something of a truism to observe that one’s free speech rights are not absolute.Justice Sotomayor seems to be doing two things here:Alluding to future legal disputes about the scope of the right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment. I don’t interpret that remark as pointing to any specific case so much as observing that free speech doctrine will need to respond to new issues like the influences of technology on civic discourse and how governments can respond.Quite explicitly analogizing between the First and Second Amendments for purposes of analyzing the case before the Court. The reference to the New York City law as potentially being a “time, place, and manner” restriction is an analogy to types of governmental restrictions on speech that may be Constitutional depending on subsequent analysis. The Justice was therefore suggesting that the city’s gun law may be Constitutional under similar Second Amendment analysis.I’m not certain that Justice Sotomayor or gun control advocates want to start analogizing the Second Amendment’s protections to the First Amendment’s, as the latter tend to be more robust! But as a comparison meant to illustrate that the city’s gun control law could be considered Constitutional under an existing legal framework, it’s a useful example.

On January 14, 2013, Justice Thomas broke his silence after nearly 7 years to make a joke about Yale Law, see On January 14, 2013, why did Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas break his nearly seven-year silence during oral arguments? for more.Why has he remained silent up until this point? The New York Times Adam Liptak reports:Justice Thomas has offered various reasons for his general taciturnity. He has said, for instance, that he is self-conscious about the way he speaks and has recalled being teased about the dialect he grew up speaking in rural Georgia.In his 2007 memoir, “My Grandfather’s Son,” he wrote that he never asked questions in college or law school and that he was intimidated by some of his fellow students.At other times, he has said that he is silent out of simple courtesy. He has also complained about the difficulty of getting a word in edgewise on an exceptionally voluble bench. The garbled transcript offers some support for that final rationale.Clarence Thomas Breaks Silence in Supreme CourtTo recap:He is self-consciousIntimidatedDifficult to interrupt his colleaguesRespect for the bench

One of the most useful bits of knowledge I picked up in law school was that the person with the steno-type machine was often my best ally in the courtroom. That alone was worth the price of my tuition!The court reporter can instantaneously read back verbatim, a question or answer in real time during a trial or other hearing. This cannot be done with a voice recording as valuable time would be consumed playing back and locating the precise exchange that the parties need to review or have the court rule on. Often, the wording of a question is critical and a recalcitrant witness may seek to avoid answering the actual question posed; the reporter puts an end to such shenanigans. For dramatic effect one can’t beat having the stenographer read back an exchange that thoroughly exposes the duplicity of a hostile witness. It also affords the court, upon an objection by one party to review the objected question or answer and make a real-time ruling or objection.The court reporter also provides a record of the arguments presented by the respective attorneys and the thought process of the judge as she/he ponders and resolves a question of law. Often a final ruling on an issue will be made following oral argument of the parties beyond those submitted in their moving papers and after live oral testimony or evidence has been taken. Upon review the written record of the proceedings helps to establish whether or not the ruling was legally or factually supported. I’ve personally had cases overturned based primarily on what I argued orally at side bar during a heated exchange in mid-trial.In lengthy trials I have had daily transcripts provided so as to effectively track the testimony of multiple witnesses and make necessary adjustments in questioning or alter tactics as the situation may change. A typewritten record is much easier to review if an appeal is necessary; in fact in those instances where a voice recording is used in an appeal, it will be necessary to reduce the voice recording to a transcript.As a final aside, if a young attorney should have the good fortune to be taken under the wing of an experienced court reporter, that person will become an invaluable mentor and guide to becoming an effective litigator. Not to mention they just might say nice things about you to the judge! ;)