From today’s transcript in Shapiro v. McManus:
MR. SULLIVAN: I think the important thing is the amendments that we pointed out in our brief are – were significant changes in — in the structure and meaning of the statute. But I was responding to Petitioners’ argument that this Court can simply look at the words “not required” and know immediately what they mean from reading the prior case law. And I don’t think that will be an effective process for this Court if it gives full —
JUSTICE SCALIA: It’s a winner for you — it’s a winner for you if those prior cases say what you say they say.
MR. SULLIVAN: I hope so, Your Honor. And I hope you’ll remember that.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, it should have been in your brief. I mean, you should have made that point in your brief.
MR. SULLIVAN: Well, you know, I’m trying to provide value now in addition to what we had in the brief.