Well, as it turns out, the long-running legal drama of state Sen. Kim Brimer's attempt to disqualify his opponent Wendy Davis will continue. Fifth Court of Appeals in Dallas won't be deciding on Brimer's lawsuit today.  The court heard arguments from both parties earlier this afternoon.

This news of no news comes as something of a surprise as the judges' questions to Brimer's attorney suggested deep misgivings about disqualifying the former Fort Worth city council member, since it's already too late to throw her name off the ballot. It wasn't even clear what would happen if the court ruled in Brimer's favor and Davis ended up winning the election. The prospect of chaos, or at least confusion, seemed to unsettle the judges, and Davis' attorneys seized on that.

“The question is whether it makes sense, at this day, to determine if Miss Davis is eligible or not,” argued Chadd Dunn, an attorney for the Texas Democratic Party.

Although the Davis camp seemed confident the court would rule in their favor within hours after the ruling, they can't be too disappointed with how the proceedings transpired. After the hearing, the challenger gave a series of interviews to reporters, lapping up the free media, while her challenger, the white-haired, cigar-stomping Brimer, who brought the litigation in the first place, was nowhere to be seen.

Interestingly, while Davis, herself a Harvard law grad, was flanked by attorneys and staffers for the Texas Democratic Party, along with the counsel for the Tarrant County Democratic Party--if there were any Republicans showing their support for Brimer, they didn't exactly make their presence felt.

Previous ruling against Brimer

Brimer's lawsuit is a complicated one--and it's certainly not far-fetched. To put it perhaps a bit too simply, under Texas law, you can't hold one office and run for another. Brimer's complaint is that Davis was not eligible to run for the District 10 seat because Joel Burns, her successor, hadn't been sworn in at the time she filed to run.

The Davis camp counters that Burns was sworn in at a private ceremony, but Brimer's attorneys characterize that as a half-hearted charade that don't mean nothing. To buttress that point, attorney Nick Acuff pointed out that even after Burns was supposedly sworn in, the city of Fort Worth was still writing Davis' city council checks.

Still, even if Brimer may have had a point, a state district judge ruled against him in July. At that point, the state senator's decision to appeal the ruling reeked of desperation. Polls were showing a tight race, and observers, including Texas Monthly editor Evan Smith, began to lambast the longtime incumbent for maintaining his legal fight.

If Brimer wins tomorrow, he faces the prospect of having to still beat his disqualified candidate at the ballot box. If he garners fewer votes than Davis-even after a court ruled she was not eligible--he'd be a laughing stock across Fort Worth, if not all of Texas. And don't think people won't vote for Davis just because a court doesn't think that a swearing in ceremony of a city council member was valid. If anything, she may get more votes.

And if the court rules against Brimer --as the judges' questions seemed to suggest--then where does that leave him? He'll have the stench of a loser, and a bitter one at that, while his challenger will be exploiting more free publicity. All because he couldn't live with a district judge's ruling.

Miss our live blogging of the hearing today? Check it out at the links below:

Brimer's attorney begins his argument (1:19 p.m.)

The Joel Burns question (1:29 p.m.)

Davis' lawyer begins his argument (1:34 p.m.)

General counsel for the Texas Democratic Party begins his argument (1:41 p.m.)

Arguments are done ... judges to rule soon (2:11 p.m.)

Read our profile of the District 10 race here.