Court arguments can be hilariously entertaining (because judges are very good at cutting through bullshit) and frustrating (because it's supposed to be pure eristics from both counsels and because many problems are caused by lack of precision in the law) at the same time. I just got entertained by a discussion about differences between kinds of delivery and about excluded middle: https://youtu.be/cuWVWUaNdqc?t=1486
The excluded middle appeal was granted! (https://efile.dcappeals.gov/public/caseView.do?csIID=63269)
I have no clue what the 2 year pause was about, why the appeal was granted as a result of the _appellee's_ motion to (seemingly) "get on with it" (i.e. why the appellant didn't care to file a similar motion way earlier), or when/under what case number the Superior Court will pick the case back up. The original case is marked as "closed" in the Superior Court.
At the same time: the lack of consequence in case numbers is grating (DC Superior Court uses spaces as separators, other courts replace them with dashes, and the DC Superior Court's lookup thingy doesn't understand those; the lookup thingy also deals in some broken way with parties with a middle name *and* the lookup thingy doesn't ever provide people with stable URLs for anything...).
@robryk you just taught me a new word: "eristics"
I had a course in constitutional law that talked us through some of the arguments testing the U.S. constitution: it was a real eye-opener, showed me more directly than I had before how the "rubber meets the road" when it comes to law
This is really hilarious: https://youtu.be/cuWVWUaNdqc?t=2374