So there's an extraordinary (and extraordinarily interesting) range of reporting about the argument before the Court. As I was on the front line, let me add a bit more. My hope in doing this is to put this in a bit of context, and to highlight at least what we should be looking for. (EV predicts a 6-3 victory, which is significant, because he and I have a bet, and he took the other side.)
Aaron reports Brewster's statement to him that "it was a dance for which I don't know the steps." That's close. I think the better analogy for someone viewing an oral argument for the first time is the first time you see a cricket match. There are some moves you are certain you know are bad (a swing and a miss); but there's lots that plays into something you can't quite get till you know the context of the game. Here, then, the context of the game, as well as the moves from last Wednesday.[Privacy Digest]
Everybody and his duck is probably going to post this, but it's too importent and interesting to pass up. Primary sources don't speak out often enough.
Navel-gazing addendum: I would have thought "everybody and his duck" was a little more popular... as of this writing, that's only three hits from Google. Is the phrase that rare? I've always enjoyed the mental image...