Thanks for the head's up. It sounds like fun. Poor Breyer just isn't very good in debates. He is too prolix, and fuzzy. He doesn't offer up examples of the application of his approach, that are in the least compelling. It is amazing he was a Harvard law professor. His classes must have really sucked. With a bit of research and preparation, I suspect I could be a more effective advocate, however disingenuous, of Breyerism, than Breyer himself. :)
I think Breyer's substance wasn't terrible, if you are susceptible to such arguments.
It was very professorish. I've taught enough calculus classes to know how to talk so that people will listen to you but won't ask any questions.
There was an interesting thought that occurred to me. He kept saying that he didn't understand the plain meaning of a certain statute. I kept thinking, "I wouldn't go around admitting that I'm stupid." But that's just me.