excerpt:"The opening arguments of Schwarzenegger v. EMA were met with sharp questioning from the Supreme Court Justices, showing both sides they have a long road ahead of them. A court transcript from Scribd (via Joystiq) gives insight to the proceedings. While some Justices were notably pithy when presented with California's case, others seemed just as skeptical of the EMA's. The day isn't won yet.
It's important to note at this stage that while California deputy attorney general Zackery Morazzini and Paul Smith were making their actual arguments for their respective cases, statements by the Justices may not reflect their final judgments, or even their actual opinions. At this stage, it's the job of the Justices to prod at the opening arguments and test for logical and legal fallacies. We may be able to extrapolate some information about which way they are leaning, but we could still be surprised by any of them.
Morazzini, representing California, was challenged over and over on the vagaries and practical execution of the law. Justices Scalia and Ginsburg pressed him on what separates games from other forms of media, while Alito pushed for a clearer term of what defines an average minor. Justice Breyer helped to clarify it by suggesting it be defined by any violence on the cusp of too violent for an 18-year-old, since that would include all age ranges below it.