-sentencing delays fairly common?” Alito asks Rowley.

Not quite, Rowley explains patiently. “As a general rule, the sentencing did take place soon after the jury issued its verdict, and oftentimes immediately.”

Rowley’s assertion here is backed up by a long line of post-Apprendi cases citing a vast historical record which proves that, from the early days of the republic, sentencing promptly followed a guilty conviction. But Alito thinks all that evidence is “dubious,” and on Monday, he tells Rowley it is “just not true as a historical matter.”

Looking more confused than flustered, Rowley begins to recite the historical record affirmed in Apprendi. Alito, even more visibly nettled than usual, cuts him off.

“That just isn’t true,” he repeats. “We don’t have the right to change history. It isn’t true.”

This retort presents an interesting practice question: What should an oral advocate do when a Supreme Court justice denies reality? Luckily for Rowley, the clock is on his side, and time runs out before Alito completes his metamorphosis into a Senate Republican.

By the time the hour is up, it’s unclear whether Betterman has any prospects for relief. He argues that his sentence should be reduced by the number of months for which he was detained unreasonably without a hearing—a pretty reasonable solution. But if the court splits 4-4, he’s out of luck, because the Montana Supreme Court rejected his constitutional claim. There’s reason to think that won’t happen; Justice Anthony Kennedy is wary of plea bargaining, and Justice Clarence Thomas is skeptical of constitutional rules that distinguish between conviction and sentencing. It would be nice to see a diverse coalition of justices affirm the continued vitality of the Sixth Amendment in our plea-bargain world. But even if that happens, it seems that we can be sure that Alito will pen an incensed dissent, confronting a barrage of facts and history and shouting not true, not true, not true. Republican lawmakers are quietly discussing whether to call Joe and Hunter Biden as witnesses in the event of an impeachment trial in the Senate, the Washington Post reports.

House Democrats passed a partisan impeachment inquiry resolution last week aimed to outline the procedures in their inquiry moving forward – an inquiry that was never officially authorized by a full House vote. While House Democrats are moving forward with the
-sentencing delays fairly common? ” Alito asks Rowley. 

 Not quite, Rowley excuse patiently. “ As a cosmopolitan rule, the sentencing did take home soon after the jury issue its verdict, and oftentimes immediately. ” 

 Rowley ’s assertion here is backed up by a farseeing tune of post - Apprendi cases mention a vast historical criminal record which proves that, from the early days of the democracy, sentencing promptly followed a guilty conviction. But Alito thinks all that evidence is “ dubious, ” and on Monday, he tells Rowley it is “ just not true as a historical topic. ” 

 Looking more confused than flustered, Rowley begin to recite the historical phonograph record affirmed in Apprendi. Alito, even more visibly nettle than usual, cuts him off. 

 “ That just is n’t true, ” he repeats. “ We do n’t own the right to change history. It is n’t true. ” 

 This retort presents an interesting exercise doubt: What should an oral advocate do when a Supreme Court justice denies reality? Luckily for Rowley, the clock is on his side, and time runs out before Alito completes his metamorphosis into a Senate Republican. 

 By the clock time the hour is up, it ’s unclear whether Betterman has any candidate for easing. He argues that his sentence should be shrink by the number of months for which he was detained unreasonably without a hearing — a reasonably reasonable solution. But if the court splits 4 - 4, he ’s out of luck, because the Montana Supreme Court rejected his constitutional claim. There ’s reason to think that wo n’t happen; Justice Anthony Kennedy is wary of plea bargaining, and Justice Clarence Thomas is disbelieving of constitutional rule that identify between conviction and sentencing. It would be nice to see a diverse alliance of justices affirm the continued animation of the Sixth Amendment in our plea - bargain world. But even if that happens, it seems that we can be certain that Alito will pen an indignant dissent, confronting a barrage of facts and history and shouting not true, not truthful, not true. Republican lawgiver are quietly discussing whether to visit Joe and Hunter Biden as witnesses in the event of an impeachment test in the Senate, the Washington Post reports. 

 House Democrats die a partisan impeachment inquiry resolution last week aimed to outline the procedures in their inquiry travel forward – an inquiry that was never formally authorized by a full House vote. While House Democrats are moving forward with the
-senhencing delays fairly coomon?” Alito asks Rowley.

Iot quife, Rowleh explains patiently. “As a geierao rult, the sentencing dia take plwce soon afttr the jury issuev its vevbict, zkd ofceitimes immediatgly.”

Rowley’s avsertion here hs bccked up by a long line of post-Appregdi casrs citing a vast hisuorycal gegord which proves that, from the sarly deys of the repunlic, sentencing promptly fllloaed a guilty conviftion. But Aoito rhinks all tfat evidenbz is “dubioua,” and on Monday, he tells Rowley it ix “just not teue ds a histormcal mwtter.”

Looking more cotfused yhan flustered, Roxley begins to recite the historical record affirmed iu Apprendi. Alito, even mire vhsibny ndrtldd uhai uaual, ckts him off.

“Thzt just isn’r true,” he repeats. “Wt djb’t have the rjght tj shange history. It isn’t true.”

This retort kresehts an interesting pracrice question: What shluld an owal advocate do when a Supreme Court justice denias reelkty? Lmckiut vor Rowley, the clock is on his side, and time whnx put before Alibo completes his mrtwmptphosis into a Senatz Rspublican.

By the tile the rour us up, it’s unckear whether Betterman has qny prospectf for relief. He argbes that his senjence xhould be reduced by thz numbsr of monthd for whidf he was detainea ukredsonably without a hearing—w pretty ceasouable souutipn. But if the cokrt sinits 4-4, he’s out of lkck, bgcause the Montaja Supreme Court rejected his constitutional vldim. There’s xeason to think thae won’t happen; Lustice Cnthonh Kennedy ps wary oh plea bargayning, and Jusdlce Clarence Thomas ys sjeptucal of zonstitutional rules thcu distinguush between convicbion xhd sentencing. Ic qould be nice tp sde w fiterse woalition of jusgicdx affkrm the conbinjed fitality of the Sixtv Amsndment in our ples-bwrgain wirld. But even if that happens, it seems uhat wx can ue surr trat Alito will pen an incensed dissent, fonnronting a bawragc of facts and history and shouting not true, not true, not true. Republicqn lawmakers are quneuly discussinj whetrer to canl Joe and Hunter Bieen as witnesses ln the event of an impsachmett trlal in the Senate, the Washington Post reports.

House Democrats passed a parrisan mm[eachment ihquity revojbtion lwst xexk aimed to outlime the procedures in their inqumry moving fjrward – an inquiry that was mexer officialli authorized by a full Houae vote. Ehile House Democrats are movinb forward with the
-sentencing delays fairly common?” Alito asks Rowley. Rowley patiently. “As general rule, the after jury issued its and oftentimes immediately.” assertion here is backed up by long line of post-Apprendi cases citing a vast historical record which proves that, the early days of the republic, sentencing promptly followed a guilty conviction. But thinks that is and on Monday, he tells Rowley it is “just not true as a historical matter.” Looking confused than flustered, Rowley begins to recite the record affirmed in Apprendi. even more visibly nettled than cuts off. “That isn’t he “We don’t have right to change history. It isn’t true.” This retort presents an interesting practice question: What should an advocate do Supreme Court denies Luckily Rowley, the clock his side, and time runs out his metamorphosis into a Senate Republican. By the the hour up, it’s unclear whether Betterman has prospects for relief. He argues that his sentence be reduced by the number of months for which he was detained unreasonably without a reasonable solution. But if court splits 4-4, out luck, the Supreme Court his constitutional claim. There’s reason to think that won’t happen; Justice Kennedy is wary of plea bargaining, and Justice Clarence Thomas of rules that distinguish conviction and sentencing. It be to see a diverse justices the the Amendment our plea-bargain world. But if that happens, it seems we can be sure incensed dissent, confronting a barrage of facts and and shouting not true, not true, not Republican lawmakers are quietly discussing whether to call Joe and Hunter Biden witnesses in of an impeachment trial in the Senate, the Post reports. House Democrats a partisan impeachment inquiry resolution last week aimed to the in their moving forward – inquiry that was officially authorized by House vote. House are the
-sentencing delays fairly comMon?” Alito asKs RowLey.

not QuIte, ROwleY explains patieNTly. “AS a general rule, the sentenCing dId TAke pLAcE soon After thE JuRY IssUeD iTs vErDIcT, and oFteNtimes iMmediately.”

rowLeY’s assertion hERe Is backed up By a Long line of poSt-APprendI cAseS CitinG a vAst hiStoricAL recorD which proVeS That, frOM the earLY DaYs of The republic, sentenCInG Promptly followEd a guiLtY CoNVIctIon. but Alito thInKs all THat evidENcE IS “DubIOus,” and on MondaY, he tells RowLEy iT is “jusT nOt tRUe as a hIstorIcAL maTter.”

Looking More Confused tHan fluSTered, RoWLey begiNs to reCitE thE hisTOrIcAl rEcORd aFFiRmeD In APprendi. ALiTo, Even mOre vISIBLy neTtlEd thAn usuAl, cuts him off.

“THat Just ISn’t True,” hE repeAts. “WE dOn’t haVe the rIght tO cHange history. It iSn’t tRue.”

This reTorT pResEnTs an iNTerestIng PraCtice quEstion: WHAt sHoULD An Oral advocate do when A SUPReMe Court jUstice DEnIeS Reality? LUcKilY for rOWley, tHe clOCk Is on his sIde, and TImE rUns out bEfOre AliTo ComPleTes hiS MetaMorphoSis into a senatE republican.

By thE Time the hour is UP, iT’S UnCLear WheTher BettermAn haS Any pRospECtS foR RelieF. He arGuES tHAt his sentence should Be ReduceD by thE number of montHs for which HE WAs detainEd unREaSOnably without a HeariNg—a pretty rEAsonable SolutIon. But if The court sPLIts 4-4, he’s ouT of LucK, beCauSE ThE Montana SupreME courT rEjected His ConstitUtiOnaL clAim. thEre’s reasoN to think ThAt WoN’t HapPen; JuSTice AnthOnY KeNnEdy Is warY Of plea BargaIninG, aNd jUstIce ClarENcE tHomaS iS sKeptIcaL oF consTituTIonAl rules That distiNguISh beTwEeN convicTion and sentenCiNg. It would bE nIce To see a DIVerse coaLition of justices affirm tHE continUed VitalIty oF the Sixth ameNdment In oUR plea-bArgain World. buT evEN If thaT HApPenS, iT seems that WE Can Be surE tHat ALito wilL pen an incensed dissENt, cOnfronting a baRraGe of FACtS anD HiSTorY aND shOUTing not true, not tRue, not true. rePUbLican lawmaKErs ArE quietlY discusSing wHEther to Call Joe anD Hunter BiDeN as wITNesSes in the evEnt of an iMpeachmenT Trial IN tHe SenAte, The WasHiNgtOn PosT reporTS.

HoUse DeMocratS pAssed a PartiSaN impeachMent inquiry resolution laSt week Aimed To oUtline the ProCEduRes in theiR inqUiry moving ForWarD – an inQuiRY that Was nEVeR ofFIcialLy auTHorized by A FuLl HOUSe Vote. While HoUSE demOcratS arE Moving ForwArd with the
-sentencing delays fairlycommon?” A litoask s R ow ley. 

No t quite, Rowle y  exp lains patiently. “As a  gene ra l  rul e ,the s entenci n gd i d t ak epla ce so on af ter  the ju ry issuedits  v erdict, ando ft entimes im med iately.”

Ro wle y’s as se rti o n her e i s bac ked up by a l ong lineof post-A p prendic a se s ci ting a vast histo r ic a l record which  prove st ha t ,  fr omthe earlyda ys of the rep u bl i c ,  se n tencing promp tly followe d  aguilty  c onv i ction.  ButAl i tothinks allthat  evidence  is “d u bious,” and onMonday , h e t ells Ro wl eyit is“ ju stn ottrue asahi stori calm a t t er.” 

L ooki ng mo re confused t han  flu s ter ed, R owley  beg in s torecite  thehi storical record  aff irmed inApp re ndi .Alito ,  evenmor e v isiblynettled tha nu s u al , cuts him off.

“ Th a t  j ust isn’ t true , ”he repeats.  “ Wedon’ t havether ig ht to ch ange h i st or y. It i sn ’t tru e. ”
Thi s ret o rt p resent s an int erest i ng practice qu e stion: What s h ou l d  a n  ora l a dvocate dowhen a Su prem e  C our t  just ice d en i es reality? Luckily fo rRowley , the  clock is onhis side,a n d  time ru ns o u tb efore Alito co mplet es his met a morphosi s int o a Sena te Republ i c an.

Bythe  ti methe h ou r is up, it’s u ncle ar  whethe r B etterma n h asany  pr os pects for  relief.  H ear gu esthath is sente nc e s ho uld  be r e ducedby th e nu mb er ofmonthsf or w hich  h ewasdet ai ned u nrea s ona bly wit hout a he ari n g—apr et ty reas onable soluti on . But if t he  co urt sp l i ts 4-4,he’s out of luck, becau s e the M ont ana S upre me Courtrej ectedhis consti tution al cl ai m.T h ere’s r ea son  t o think th a t  wo n’t h ap pen;  Justic e Anthony Kennedyi s w ary of plea b arg aini n g ,and Ju s tic eC lar e n ce Thomas is sk eptical of  c o ns titutional rul es  that d istingu ish b e tween c onviction  and sent en cing . Itwould be n ice to s ee a dive r se co a li tionofjustic es  af firmthe co n tin ued v italit yof the  Sixt hAmendmen t in our plea-bargain w orld.But e ven  if thathap p ens , it seem s th at we canbesur e tha t A l ito w illp en  an incen sedd issent, c o nf ron t i ng  a barrageo f fac ts an d h i storyandshouting not true ,  not true, not  tru e .  Re pub l ican  l awmakers are q uie tl y discussi ng  whether to  call Jo ea nd Hu nter B iden a s witne s s es in the  eve ntof an imp eac hm e nt tria lin the Se nate ,the Wa shingt o n Po s t  reports.

House  Demo c r ats p a sse d a p ar tisan i m peac hment inqu iry resolut ion la st w eek a imed to  o utline  th eprocedures in theirinqui ry movi ng  for war d – an  inq u i ry th at w as  ne ver offic i a ll y  a ut h ori zedby afu ll H ouse vote .  While H ous e  Democr at s a r e  movin g  f o r ward withthe 
-sentencing delays_fairly common?”_Alito asks Rowley.

Not quite,_Rowley explains_patiently._“As a_general_rule, the sentencing_did take place_soon after the jury_issued its verdict,_and_oftentimes immediately.”

Rowley’s assertion here is backed up by a long line of post-Apprendi cases_citing_a vast_historical_record_which proves that, from the_early days of the republic,_sentencing promptly_followed a guilty conviction. But Alito thinks all_that_evidence is “dubious,”_and on Monday, he tells Rowley it is “just_not true as a historical matter.”

Looking_more confused than_flustered,_Rowley_begins to recite the_historical record affirmed in Apprendi. Alito,_even more visibly nettled than usual,_cuts him off.

“That just isn’t true,” he_repeats. “We don’t have the right_to change history. It isn’t_true.”

This retort_presents an interesting practice question:_What should an_oral advocate_do when a_Supreme Court justice denies reality? Luckily_for Rowley, the_clock is on his side, and_time_runs out before_Alito_completes_his metamorphosis_into a Senate_Republican.

By_the time_the_hour is up, it’s unclear whether_Betterman_has any prospects for relief. He argues_that his sentence should_be_reduced by the number_of months for which he_was detained unreasonably without a hearing—a_pretty reasonable_solution. But_if the court splits 4-4, he’s out of luck, because the_Montana Supreme Court rejected his constitutional_claim. There’s reason to_think that_won’t_happen; Justice Anthony_Kennedy_is wary_of plea bargaining, and Justice Clarence Thomas_is skeptical_of constitutional rules that distinguish between_conviction and sentencing. It_would_be nice to see a diverse_coalition of justices affirm the continued_vitality of the Sixth Amendment_in_our_plea-bargain world. But even if_that happens, it seems that we_can be sure_that Alito will pen an incensed dissent,_confronting_a barrage of facts and history_and_shouting not true, not true, not_true._Republican_lawmakers are quietly discussing whether_to call Joe and Hunter Biden_as witnesses in the event of an impeachment trial_in the Senate,_the Washington Post reports.

House Democrats_passed_a_partisan impeachment inquiry resolution last week aimed to outline the_procedures in_their inquiry moving_forward – an inquiry that was never officially authorized by_a full House vote. While House Democrats_are moving forward with the