SCOTUS grants motion to hear SG oral argumenst in Heller case.

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LickitySplit

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
83
But, they deny Texas the same courtesy. :mad:

Seems like we've been taking two steps forwards then one step backwards with this case (and it hasn't even been heard yet).

Gun Case Argument Schedule is Set

In a brief order on today's order list the Supreme Court dashed the hopes of gun rights advocates who hoped to have two lawyers and additional time arguing their cause before the Supreme Court when it hears arguments in the historic case D.C. v. Heller March 18.

Without explanation, the Court denied the motion of Texas Solicitor General R. Ted Cruz for argument time on the side of Alan Gura of Gura & Possessky, who has argued the pro-Second Amendment position from the start of the case.

But the Court did agree to give Solicitor General Paul Clement 15 minutes to argue, in addition to the 30 minutes for each side in the case.

The Court's action can be read as a small but not insignificant victory for supporters of D.C.'s handgun control ordinance at issue in the case.

Cruz had argued to the Court that he should be heard on behalf of 31 states favoring a broad view of the Second Amendment, because Solicitor General Paul Clement's brief in the case is "contrary" to the position of gun rights supporters. While Clement supports an "individual right" view of the Second Amendment, he advocates a standard of review that critics say will allow too many gun regulations to stand. Clement also urged vacating and remanding the lower court ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in the case, the first ever to strike down a gun regulation on Second Amendment grounds. Walter Dellinger of O'Melveny & Myers, who will argue in defense of the D.C. handgun ban, had opposed the Texas motion, but supported Clement's request for added argument time.

It is very common for the Court to say yes to a request from the solicitor general for argument time as amicus curiae no matter where he stands. As for states, in recent years they have won argument time with greater frequency — four times last term alone — though this term the success rate has been lower. One factor working against Texas in the D.C. case is that states are not unanimous on the Second Amendment issue; New York, joined by Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Puerto Rico, filed a brief on the gun control side.

So, even though Clement's brief lends support to both sides, the net effect of today's Court action is that the justices will hear 45 minutes of advocacy from those who want the lower court ruling eliminated, and 30 minutes from those who want it upheld.
Click to expand...

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2008/02/gun-case-argume.html
 
The other side needs as much oral time as it can get because their briefs are lacking legal credibility.
Click to expand...


That's exactly what I was thinking! "Texas, you don't need any time on the floor. Your amicus brief actually makes sense. The SG on the other hand..."
 
Well, that's a positive way to look at it.

I just hope your right.

If your right, that's a good thing.

If it's not right.....that's a bad thing.
 
I just can't get a warm fuzzy about how this is gonna go down. I believe it need to happen no matter which way SCOTUS rules if for no other reason than to take it to the next step in the game.
My point though is that the more brilliant the briefs on our side and the more inane the briefs on DC's side the more I think we are gonna get a royal shafting.
 
The other side needs as much oral time as it can get because their briefs are lacking legal credibility.
Click to expand...

Yeah. The justices sometimes spend that time ridiculing the attorney making the argument.

I sincerely doubt that, particularly with the volumes of amicus briefs in this case and the long written briefs of each side, the oral arguments will change the justices' minds too much. I'm sure the justices will spend a great deal of time on this case, not 1:15.

Furthermore, if the arguments are not really good ones, they can hurt the side doing the arguing. 15 minutes is enough rope to allow the SG to hang himself, too. Giving the SG a bit of time to make an argument does not necessarily mean that the judges agree with him.

This should be interesting...
 
Guys, the SG's position is downright hostile to DC. His brief flatly says that DC's position is wrong and that the DC Circuit Court's verdict is, on the whole, correct. The rest of the brief basically says "...but if we go with that conclusion, some other restrictions we like will be overturned later, so please make up some excuse to bury the case." It's not favorable to either side. The position only helps DC insofar as it the inevitable is delayed pursuant to minimizing the effect on other laws.

The SG's motive is to ask SCOTUS to evaluate the case on some "lowered standard of review". First off, this will likely not be taken well: "strict scrutiny" is the standard for Bill of Rights cases, leading to precedent of some pretty extreme protections of enumerated rights. Next, any "lowered standard of review" presumably must conclude that DC's near-total ban is unconstitutional, otherwise the standard makes a distinction without a difference; the SG is asking SCOTUS to ultimately find DC wrong while maintaining every other prohibitionary/regulatory law. Finally, the upshot of the SG's brief is to plead for preservation of 922(o) (post-'86 full-auto ban) which I'd contend is less strict than the DC ban: at least existing registered pre-'86 MGs can be transferred, moved, and used relatively freely ... unlike the DC ban, which amounts to "if you had one pre-'76, you can keep it, but don't you ever do anything with it"; trying to overturn DC's ban (which the SG's brief advocates) while upholding 922(o) requires impossible levels of legal contortions.

I'm viewing the SG's time in arguments not as in support of DC, but as a discussion of the consequences of ruling against DC.

As for keeping Texas et al out, letting 'em in would in fairness require letting NY et al in, which just makes a mess of things as argument time increases dramatically with no apparent use. Remember, the point of oral arguments is mostly to let the judges get clarification on a few points; nothing is to be presented unbidden which hasn't already been addressed in a half-million words of briefs already.
 
I worry that Gura's defintion of "arms" is pretty mushy, and he inserts some things in there that are not in Parker or Miller. He is so focused on this one case that he loses sight of the big picture a bit (not that I blame him for it; it is his job to win this case and this case only). I think the Texas' brief was more straightforward on that issue.

In reality it probably makes very little difference. The Justices are all very smart and will probably have their minds made up before oral argument.
 
Finally, the upshot of the SG's brief is to plead for preservation of 922(o) (post-'86 full-auto ban)
Click to expand...

...which is really odd, since I don't think there are many examples of NFA guns with tax stamps being used by their owners in crimes of any sort...

Legal NFA machine guns are used as expensive toys, plain and simple.

I've looked through the newspaper lists of BATFE seizures and it does appear that many fully-automatic firearms are seized by F Troop as part of criminal cases. HOWEVER, I don't believe I've seen any that were legally owned, and seized from their legal owners.

That would suggest that allowing full-auto small arms to be purchased by people who aren't filmmakers, with all the red tape of the NFA, and the criminal liability of not complying with it, would not pose any real threat to society. (Furthermore, it's just not THAT hard to make or smuggle in a machine gun anyway, if you want to break the law.)
 
From the Of Arms and Men blog:
The appearance of unfairness by the Court is now certain. 45 minutes for the Petitioner and only 30 minutes for the Respondent. Even a 5th grader knows that isn't impartial.
Click to expand...
 
I'm not sure that the SG can be said to be on the side of the Petitioner, especially if you read what each of them says.

SG is really coming from left field. There's a fair chance that the justices will tell him so, too.
 
The justices sometimes spend that time ridiculing the attorney making the argument.
Click to expand...

This is true, so to speak. It is possible that the court, already leaning toward "individual rights", has allotted the time so as to query the petitioner in-depth. That is, the respondent's argument is clear and common-sensical right out of the box. No further querying needed. The petitioner however isn't so clear, and as such must be drilled for info.

I personally don't see this as good or bad.


-T.
 
The appearance of unfairness by the Court is now certain.
Click to expand...
5th graders have also learned that misconstruing statistics can work in one's favor.

As noted before, the SG's brief is not particularly friendly to DC either. It goes so far as to shred DC's argument very quickly, then pleads for SCOTUS to find a way to rule against DC without further impacting other laws.

Also noted prior, oral arguments before SCOTUS do not constitute "making your case" so much as answering very pointed, succinct, and often very awkward questions by the judges regarding one's position. Sometimes it's just a chance for judges to berate a party for presenting inanities as sanity. With about a half-million words presented in all the Heller briefs, there really isn't much more to be said in person that hasn't been better said on paper (and, as such, Justice Thomas expresses little interest in oral arguments generally).

I'm quite sure DC is not particularly happy about the SG getting time, at best arguing for delaying the inevitable.
 
Last edited:
Scotus granting the SG a limited amount of time as a petitioner and denying A.N.Other is not particularly unusual.

Interesting write up on this here

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2008/02/gun-case-argume.html

In effect, the SG, as one of the the repreentatives of the troika of Executive, Legislative and Judicial will always have the probability of greater access.

However in this case I'm fairly sanguine, IMHO the SC is ensuring the range of opinion is being VISIBLY aired before making decision.

Any possibility of this being broadcast/webcast.....I would love to see the roasting of the incompetent briefs.....M'mmmmmm Smell slike chicken
 
Finally, the upshot of the SG's brief is to plead for preservation of 922(o) (post-'86 full-auto ban) which I'd contend is less strict than the DC ban: at least existing registered pre-'86 MGs can be transferred, moved, and used relatively freely ... unlike the DC ban, which amounts to "if you had one pre-'76, you can keep it, but don't you ever do anything with it"; trying to overturn DC's ban (which the SG's brief advocates) while upholding 922(o) requires impossible levels of legal contortions.

I'm viewing the SG's time in arguments not as in support of DC, but as a discussion of the consequences of ruling against DC.
Click to expand...

Impossible? I wish I could believe that were true, but considering that giving property to a private developer is considered "public use" and possessing a homegrown cannabis plant or homemade machine gun is considered "interstate commerce" I would say anything is possible.
 
everallm:
The argument audio will be made available shortly after it occurs, but the SCOTUS does not allow cameras of any variety inside the courtroom.

Kharn
 
15 minutes is plenty of time to stand up and look like a fool. When your enemy is making a mistake, which the SG's position really seems like it could be in front of the court, let him.

He is so focused on this one case that he loses sight of the big picture a bit
Click to expand...

That doesn't really make sense. The big picture is getting a ruling for an individual right, not creating a gun utopia that many people think should exist in the US. The only thing important right now is winning the case and getting a narrow decision in favor of an individual right. Then all the gun utopians can go out and challenge the rest of the laws however they want. Since the ruling will be narrow he can toss MGs aside to create a palatable ruling and later reverse himself and expand his argument. It is how liberalism spreads its insideous seeds, time for us to learn how to use it to our advantage.
 
15 minutes is plenty of time to stand up and look like a fool.
Click to expand...
Note that the SG's brief, while pleading desperately for a lower standard of review, utterly failed to show how that would be achieved.

I imagine his 15 minutes will begin with "seeing as you wish us to use an intermediate level of scrutiny, what would you like to propose?" What follows will, I imagine, be not pretty.
 
Unfortunate, and unfortunate that the SG has morphed into the Tenth Justice. But that problem has been around awhile and won't be solved in this case.

Id have preferred a couple more Roberts/Alitos before this happened.
Click to expand...

I would have preferred Justice Bork.
 
Bork was actually anti-gun at the time he was nominated and bought into the collective rights theory, although with the help of other conservatives he has finally seen the light and made a full recovery. I don't think he would have had that opportunity if he had been on the court.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
SCOTUS gives anti gunners side an edge ?
Replies
5
Views
516
bg
B
A
  • Locked
Solicitor General who argued for D.C. Ban is out!
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
another okie
A
S
  • Locked
Editorial on the Bush Admin's split on Heller
Replies
23
Views
1K
Malone LaVeigh
M
L
  • Locked
McDonald v Chicago update
Replies
3
Views
555
Art Eatman
A
W
  • Locked
Supreme Court OK's Early Release of Heller Arguments
Replies
6
Views
833
BridgeWalker
B
Back
Top