All the survivors and families of people who perished on 9/11 will be called, and it's hard to imagine how to counter any of that.

The juries you draw in federal courts are more favorably inclined to institutional defendants.

He anticipated an attack on him. I have a lot of respect for a judge who, presented with a difficult decision, admits it's going to be tough. He has discharged his oath.

I don't think anybody today sees a reason for a filibuster, but they may after the hearing if the answers are troubling to them or they feel they haven't gotten the answers to important questions.

If he had not testified, it seems likely the jury would have come in in his favor.

By and large, the court is very deferential to this administration and others before it.

His behavior is so erratic it's hard to know what his testimony will mean for his case. But he has a right to testify.

They've said airport security was 50 percent of the case, and it was always a difficult case. So now it becomes doubly difficult.

It's too soon to say Merck has momentum. Many people felt the Irvin case was a weak case to begin with. It was a short-term usage case.

It's always unpredictable saying what the docket will look like in 10 years, ... It could be high-tech, biotech. ... If it were present-day issues, you'd have to take it case by case.