Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[jerrywhoo]

Here’s a thought.... Judges always review briefs prior to oral arguments. Often times they’ve already made certain determinations as to the validity of each sides arguments. It’s not to say that they’ve already made up their minds but rather they have a proclivity towards one side either because of the briefs or because of judicial philosophy. You see this often with other issues as well, where the judges judicial philosophy is already well know. (i.e. no one would mistake RBG to be pro-life).

During oral arguments the asking of questions isn’t just to clear up weaknesses in a party’s case but often times questions are asked by judges as an attempt to convince their colleagues to change positions in a case, especially when it’s known that a certain judge may have preconceived leanings on specific issues that have come across the court.

What if (and this is all speculation) Judge Dyk’s question were meant to convince at least one of the other two judges to cross the isle and embrace his side of the argument. Whereas Judge Dyk knew or had reason to believe that the other judges were leaning towards overturning the District Court decision? Judge Dyk might have known the panel was leaning 2-1 in favor of overturning with himself as the sole dissenter, thus the hard questioning of Singer was an attempt to raise at least some doubt in the minds of the other two judges.

As for why no one asked question to the attorneys on the other side? This one is harder to answer. And of course this is all speculation. But maybe there was no need to ask questions since the panel knew that Dyk would be the lone dissenter. With a 2-1 decision your side would still prevail, regardless of whether you were able to change Judge Dyk’s position.