WEBVTT

00:38:52.000 --> 00:51:33.000
Will: Yes. Right. So then, where this really matters is all the cases that are in the zone of ambiguity. This is really just very similar to the strategy in [unintelligible . It's not a coincidence that they're emanating from the same person, same article.

00:51:33.000 --> 00:53:01.000
Will: Right. And once Justice Thomas has written the opinion also, if you agree with it, some [unintelligible , then it wouldn't be hard to just say, "Okay, sign me up."

00:53:01.000 --> 01:03:15.000
Will: It's sort of related to the court's initial concern about manipulating our jurisdiction or something like, "Lower court [unintelligible dubious, somebody wants us to review it. If we lost our chance to review it, then maybe the lower court opinion is suspect and should be taken off the books."

01:03:15.000 --> 01:03:45.000
Dan: All right. Well, here, we don't really have a feisty debate about Munsingwear. The majority's analysis of this question-- it's an opinion by Justice Barrett, by the way, I don't know if we said that. Majority's analysis of the question is two sentences. It says, "Justice Jackson objects to this disposition, urging us to instead leave the First Circuit's judgment in place. Our Munsingwear practice is well settled." And then, cites a bunch of Munsingwear cases and then does a [unintelligible to the Supreme Court practice treatise. "We decline Justice Jackson's invitation to reconsider it." Just like, so little interest in this.