> SCOTUS

‘…the Southern District of New York will hear…’

> question of merits whether you like IA or not

Whether the court ‘likes IA or not’ may be a relevant question in respect of public policy considerations.

> rooting is definitely inappropriate

First, participating (well IA really mean listening which is even weaker) does not amount to rooting. Second, there’s nothing wrong with having a view on what the judgment should be, unless writing an article in a law journal disputing a judgment would be ‘inappropriate’.

Why is it deeply offensive? "Participate" here just means to follow, kind of like a Steve Jobs keynote liveblog.

"Rooting" for one side of a legal case is absolutely appropriate for a defendant (or plaintiff) in our adversarial legal system. A defendant with a weak legal case but a strong public policy argument /needs/ to rally public support for their cause, so that if/when the court rules against them, they can push for the law to change.

This is judicially illiterate:

"Common law refers to laws that are based on the customs and principles of society, which are used in court case decisions in situations not covered by civil law statutes."

Your post appears oblivious to the distinction between common law and civil law systems, to the role societal customs play when interpreting the law, and to the role SCOTUS plays in the judicial machine