The MP3 For oral arguments for Sorrell v. IMS Health is now online. I blogged before about Tom Goldstein, who argued for the Respondent, and his sassy advocacy. Listen to it yourself here. Tom starts at 31:14.
In particular, I found this rapport a bit snarky:
JUSTICE BREYER: That’s where I was going.
MR. GOLDSTEIN: Okay.
JUSTICE BREYER: I chose an example that’s beyond your case.
MR. GOLDSTEIN: That’s why it’s called a hypothetical.
Justice Breyer seemed to get a little testy later in the arguments, and quipped whether a regulated industry can even exist. Goldstein took it in stride.
JUSTICE BREYER: It used to be true there was something called a regulated industry.
MR. GOLDSTEIN: Yes.
JUSTICE BREYER: And selling was within activity among many.
MR. GOLDSTEIN: Sure.
JUSTICE BREYER: And there were lots of regulations that could be imposed upon selling.
MR. GOLDSTEIN: Sure, right.
JUSTICE BREYER: Are you saying that all those should be reexamined?
MR. GOLDSTEIN: I — I thankfully am not.
Update: OK, I just finished listening to the MP3. Wow. The transcripts really do not do Tom’s performance justice. In the “hypothetical question” exchange with Justice Breyer, he slides in “That’s why it’s called a hypothetical” under his breath, really quickly. He barely enunciates the end, as if he realized he shouldn’t say it. Then, smugly, he laughs.
In the second exchange I quoted, the interjections of “sure” and “sure, right” are not during pauses in Breyer’s question. Breyer is talking, and Tom talks over him to say “sure.”
The entire opening segment where he directs the Justices to turn to specific pages sounds awfully patronizing.