Argument for Remote Argument

The NLJ has Tessa Dysart's commentary An Argument for Remote Appellate Court Hearings

• Having engaged in hundreds of conversations via Zoom over the last two years, including numerous student oral arguments, moots for real attorneys, and large faculty senate meetings, I just don’t see how that purpose of oral argument is diminished by a virtual, video format.
• 
  Another purpose of oral argument is to persuade the judges using your ethos. I do think that this can be harder to do remotely, but not impossible. I have blogged on The Appellate Advocacy Blog, as have others, on tips for a successful remote argument. It is doable, just different.
• I cannot think of any reason why an attorney who wants a remote argument, especially if the other side agrees, should not be allowed to present remotely—pandemic or not. And while there are countless reasons why remote argument should be allowed, I want to focus on two. The first is cost. .... The second reason is convenience.

Also of interest from Bloomberg Law: Reversal Rates Imperfect Tool for Judging Supreme Court Nominees.

How about some appealability cases? Ok, fine! Today brings this California opinion from 2/7 here and one from the 9th Circuit here.