What makes for a good argument, at bottom, is being more prepared than anyone else in that courtroom, and being willing to fight to tell your client's story - the story of why the right view of the law and my client's interests are one and the same.
I certainly have a pretty settled pattern at this point of what I do substantively in terms of reviewing briefs, record materials, cases, etc.
While I have the greatest respect for the Supreme Court's members, I cannot claim familiarity with any particular judicial philosophies the justices might possess.
I try to do two moot courts for every Supreme Court case (and one to two for courts of appeals), and to ensure I am being mooted by people who know the Supreme Court well and are coming to the case fresh.
I do not need any cheerleaders at my moot court. And I cannot imagine walking into that Court without the preparation of a few vicious moot courts; it is critical to the development of my thinking.
I do try very hard to develop themes that are easily understood and that, hopefully, will paint vivid images of the legal principles and implications of the ruling that will stick in the Justices' heads and will help influence how they think about the case.
Whatever a person's politics, lawyers have to understand that we are, for most people, the gateway for them to have access to the third branch of government.
