Turtle Talk

Interesting, but not terribly surprising, that the Governor and the R.I. Attorney General would have forfeited oral argument rather than allow Joe Larisa to make the argument; or at least, that Larisa believed them. As Justice Thomas said recently, nine times out of ten, oral argument doesn’t change his mind, but he did say a party can lose a case at oral argument. And since the Supreme Court granted cert on Rhode Island’s petitions, it is their case to lose at this point. So forfeiting oral argument might have made sense, strategically. Who knows….

From ProJo:

***The drama began at 11 a.m. when a court clerk placed a conference call to Larisa, assistant solicitor for Indian affairs for Charlestown; Theodore B. Olson, a prominent Washington, D.C., lawyer, and representatives of Governor Carcieri and Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch. The clerk said that the justices of the nation’s highest court had refused Larisa’s last-minute emergency motion to help resolve the dispute. The parties would have to decide for themselves whether Larisa or Olson –– the choice of the governor and the attorney general –– got to argue the case.

Decide by noon, the clerk said. If you don’t, the state will lose its chance for anyone to make an oral presentation in a case that could set a nationwide precedent for disputes involving Indian land.

With the clock ticking, Larisa left his law office on Dorrance Street and drove to the State House.

There, in the first-floor office of Kernan F. King, the governor’s legal counsel, Larisa maneuvered one last time. He proposed that the decision of representation be made by drawing straws. King refused, telling him that the governor and the attorney general would rather yield the state’s 30 minutes of oral argument than have Larisa do it.

Larisa, who had been called narcissistic, intransigent and a defiant toddler during the weeks of the bitter dispute, backed off.

***