There was some of that, but for the most part, appeals courts make you argue against your opponent, but it is done through the judges. It's different. It isn't like the court you think you are used to.
I’d tell you to listen to more hearings. They’re designed to be professionally adversarial. There was some BS, but not as much as I think everyone thinks.
I don’t know what exact part you heard. But they ask VERY broad questions, so they may ask. Talk some more. And circle back. Ultimately, yes, always. THEY WANT AN ANSWER. They want you to disprove your own opponent. It’s just how it goes. It’s intellectuals.
But there was some behavior that I believe was inappropriate and not normally part of the judiciary stoicism.
There was some of that, but for the most part, appeals courts make you argue against your opponent, but it is done through the judges. It's different. It isn't like the court you think you are used to.
I’d tell you to listen to more hearings. They’re designed to be professionally adversarial. There was some BS, but not as much as I think everyone thinks.
I don’t know what exact part you heard. But they ask VERY broad questions, so they may ask. Talk some more. And circle back. Ultimately, yes, always. THEY WANT AN ANSWER. They want you to disprove your own opponent. It’s just how it goes. It’s intellectuals.
But there was some behavior that I believe was inappropriate and not normally part of the judiciary stoicism.
Catching up to this very late. I totally agree with you.
These bastard Neolib judges were simply fishing. One of them was going on and on about a "hypothetical".
It was all a trap and they were trying to trip Sidney up in order to bury her.
Sidney is just TREMENDOUS!