My take on the oral arguments is one post down. For two other more lawerly and smarter review of this morning's proceedings:

Close followers of the case know that Prof. Rick Hasen of Loyola Law School in L.A. and the Election Law blog and Ned Foley of Ohio State's Moritz Law school and it's Election Law @ Moritz blog have followed the case closely and both watched the arguments over the internet and weighed in.

Wrote Foley:

"This momentous case may end up with a rather anticlimactic ruling that Coleman loses not because his legal arguments lacked merit, or even that the ballots he wanted counted weren’t voted for him in a large enough ratio, but instead because he simply failed to take the evidentiary steps necessary to show which specific ballots were wrongly treated by local election officials. If that indeed is the outcome, the inevitable question will arise: why did Coleman’s lawyers fail to take the necessary steps? Was it a lack of money, or a strategic decision not to spend it? Or some other explanation?"

Wrote Hasen:

"There's no question that Coleman's side got much tougher question than Franken's side, and based upon oral argument I would not be surprised to see a unanimous decision in favor of Franken in a relatively short time frame (within two weeks--maybe sooner). I counted at least three of the five Justices who were much more willing to accept Franken's arguments than Coleman's arguments, and who asked Coleman's side much more difficult questions."