They cut off the line attendees right before me but had set up televisions in courtroom #4 and in the cafe. Upon my arrival at the cafe the proceedings having begun, and Amber Abassi already speaking, I did not get to hear the opening nor the introductions. Impressions varied. Below are some:
The judge on left (from audience view) sounded as if he got it, the one on the right sounded as if he didn’t, the one in the middle, inconclusive.
“Going into the hearing, I knew that this would be a legal discussion, with judges probing lawyers about legal propositions. Judges circulated questions to lawyers late last week. To read much into the legal probing is a fool’s errand. They were tough on both sides. They appear to be well-read, up on the issues and fully prepared. All have reputations for being straight-shooters. “
One other person said something that made me laugh:
“A hearing is something best left to attorneys to describe – also a hearing is like going to a seance in a way, we are all trying to psychically read meaning and leaning into the questions posed by the judges.”
This one was special:
“I find it fascinating (or rather, a sad commentary on the journalism profession these days) that none of the reports I’ve read so far have actually made the distinction that this hearing was about whether to keep the injunction in place or not, NOT deciding the case itself.