Here’s a link to yesterday’s oral arguments in Denedo and Medina. And here is a link already to today’s oral arguments in Parrish and Brown.

And here is JO’C’s analysis of the Denedo argument that he posted in a comment earlier today:

John O’Connor said…

I just listened to oral argument in Denedo. While it’s inherently dicey to predict an outcome based on the tenor of oral argument, I didn’t hear three votes for the exercise of writ jurisdiction here. My suspicion is that the court will dismiss the writ petition, with the real issue being whether the court does so without prejudice so that Denedo can come back if an Article III court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over the petition.

Of course, in my mind, that proposition has it exactly backwards, as the CAAF (with its very narrow jurisdiction) should not be the residuum court, the one that will exercise jurisdiction if another court won’t. I believe that an Article III court would have jurisdiction over the writ and, again in my mind, the CAAF has no place expanding its own powers if, for whatever reason, an Article III court erroneously concludes that it lacks jurisdiction.

Tue Oct 02, 02:23:00 PM EDT

4 Responses to “Links posted for this week’s oral arguments”

  1. John O'Connor says:

    To paraphrase the great Navin Johnson:

    “I’m somebody now! Millions of people look at this blog everyday! This is the kind of spontaneous publicity – your name in print – that makes people. I’m in print! Things are going to start happening to me now.”

    Thanks for cleaning up the typos.

  2. Christopher Mathews says:

    As I recall, that ended in a rather harrowing fashion for Navin.

  3. John O'Connor says:

    Oh yeah, Christopher Mathews? I don’t need you. I don’t need anything . . . except this paddle ball game.

  4. Christopher Mathews says:

    … and the ashtray. And these matches, and the remote control …