Now if I am wrong, please correct me, but it is my understanding, from the study of Scalia’s works and the case law he provides for one to study, should not the emphasis of ones brief be finely tuned to the specifics and leave the generalities to the oral arguments? Because in most cases, as Scalia repeatedly admits, more often than not, the judge's mind is made up not during oral arguments, but from the briefs themselves. The oral arguments only strengthen ones case, or allow for any questions the judge might have.
I agree with you. I don't much value in the history of the term, at least not in Cruz's case, becasue the text of the constitution and the case law are enough. Just the same, Elliott's brief is not rooted in the academic summaries. In contrast, Cruz's argument are heavily weighted on the academic advocacy pieces.