The Chief Justice's Comment on the Incompetence Claim in Arizona

Arizona is basely saying, well, martine says, you weren't at fault for failing to present the claim, but you were at fault for not presenting evidence. And of course, there are also the problems because of how arizona's proposed rule interacts with martines. But it's hard to know whether to what extent they're playing devil's advocate or something like that. Some justices didn't talk at all during the argument, which makes interpreting the argument even harder. Maybe wishell thinking on my part after argument, i thought it was close and that there was maybe a slim majority to reject arizon's position. I'm thinking that that would make any sense?