« "Thanks, Iowa Supreme Court!" | Main | Against unity »

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

Argument: Hamer v. NHSC

Here is my SCOTUSBlog recap of Tuesday's argument Hamer v. NHSC. Justice Ginsburg was as engaged in this argument as I think I ever have seen her. She even had some love for the arguments of Scott Dodson (Hastings), who filed an amicus brief putting forward his theory that a jurisdictional rule is any rule, regardless of source, that places a case in one court and out of another. She asked petitioner's counsel about Scott's argument; his response was that Scott's formulation is "incorrect" because inconsistent with prior cases and the Rules of Civil Procedure, although without explaining whether or why that formulation is normatively wrong. No one else followed on Ginsburg's question.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on October 10, 2017 at 10:09 PM in Civil Procedure, Howard Wasserman, Law and Politics | Permalink

Comments

A Ginsburg-heavy civil procedure argument you might enjoy from earlier in her tenure is Ruhrgas, which she wrote; Charles Alan Wright argued and she and he have a fun time. Wright gives a rather stately argument. You have to listen to the audio to get the full experience:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1998/98-470

Posted by: Asher Steinberg | Oct 11, 2017 11:48:13 PM

Post a comment