D.C. Lawyers vs. Heller Lawyers today?

[usmarine0352_2005]

So, those of you who listened to the oral arguements:

How well did our lawyers do against the anti's lawyers?

I listened to some of it, and one of the guy's, (I think he was on our side) sounded really young, and confused by the judges. Am I wrong?

 

[Baba Louie]

It was Gura's 1st time up to bat at SCOTUS so it might have been him you heard. He batted third after Dellenger (DC) and Clement (Solicitor Gen).
Here's yahoo's take on it
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080318/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

Now that I'm listening to it, I think the young guy who seems like he's being overwhelmed by the judges is Walter Dellenger.

 

[Zedicus]

they could have done better, but overall I would say they weren't that bad.
Dellenger needs to get his act together though, he is going into non-existent specifics to often, and is siding with the collective-right argument with all of his emphasis on the "Militia" Clause.

His arguments regarding Miller are also somewhat weak.

 

[Thumper]

Gura was there to keep the conversation on the Heller case. Many here are disappointed that he didn't try to broaden the case (especially when given the "opportunity" to do so by our enemies).

I think he did a very good job to ensure an Individual interpretation and a Heller win.

 

[Sistema1927]

I read the entire transcript, and it is difficult to determine which way things will go.

Where was Justice Thomas? He isn't quoted once in the transcript. Was he there but silent?

 

[Dave Workman]

Well, for what it's worth, here is my take, and I'll be writing about this so I must maintain some appearance of fairness.

D.C. got it's butt kicked, and I suspect that the mayor, police chief, attorney, council president all know it. They appeared as though they knew it at the press conference following the orals.

My impression was that Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito in particular had really done their homework. I was impressed by the questions and comments from both Kennedy and Ginsburg, and Scalia demonstrated repeatedly that he truly understands this subject. Justice David Souter brought up some interesting questions.

While I'm certain that not many here will concur with the lines of questioning from John Paul Stevens and Steven Breyer, their questions seemed well thought-out.

Chief Justice Roberts ran a tight ship, and he also asked some very good questions.

The only justice not to participate was Clarence Thomas, but he's a fellow who listens a lot, and when he finally does talk...everybody else listens.

 

[Winchester 73]

Where was Justice Thomas? He isn't quoted once in the transcript. Was he there but silent?

Silent Clarence hasn't spoken in about 2 years now.
To be exact ,February 26,2006 in a unanimous dealth penalty case.

 

[hvengel]

Gura is only 34 years old. I didn't know this before turning on cspan TV to listen to the arguments. He is very young.

My impression is that the DC lawyer did OK considering that the case he had to work with was VERY weak and that at least some of the justices really went after his case. Gura did OK but could have been stronger. As far as I could tell he didn't make any significant mistakes and it appeared that he had at least some friends on the bench who helped him out a few times.

Overall it was clear that Gura was presenting a very strong case and I suspect that all he really needed to do was not screw up. I think he was successful.

 

[Quiet]

I didn't like Gura's statement that NFA items (MG/SBS/SBR/AOW/DD) are not protected under the 2nd Amendment. :banghead:

Other than that, DC has a hard fight in winning it's case.

 

[hanno]

Overall it was clear that Gura was presenting a very strong case and I suspect that all he really needed to do was not screw up. I think he was successful.

My thoughts exactly. The briefs are critical, the oral argument is icing. All Gura could do was screw up a strong case and he didn't.

 

[Well Regulated]

Gura was inept. You cannot argue that the handgun ban in the district is unreasonable, while at the same time guns "not suitable for civilian use" ( That is the District's Argument) can be outlawed and that you can ban guns on campus , you can ban armour piercing bullets, that you can license people and that machine guns can be outlawed despite the fact that the Government conceded that they probably couldn't be and Justice Ginsburg had to step in and say that General Clement said machine guns were ok and that trigger locks or safe storage requirements were ok in all the other states, just not in the District of Columbia. It's a non sequitor. Handguns are no more special than any other firearm not suitable for civilian use and by the way, who makes that determination? He undermined his entire position. The judges know he was doing poorly and hopefully they will rule upon the briefs, not Gura's last minute conversion to being an anti-second amendment zealot. After the arguments the team was asked if they thought all handguns were protected and they said no, they would support some handgun bans. So you tell me which side is he on? He seems to be a spokesman for the Brady campaign.

 

[Thumper]

Well Regulated, you fail to grasp Heller's (Gura's) intent. He did exactly what he was supposed to do: Narrowly define the case in order to get a Heller win and an Individual ruling.

There's a certain level of sophistication necessary to understand strategies before the Justices. There's a strong possibility that there were factors at play we know nothing about.

The fact that we don't agree with some of the content of his argument (as a Second Amendment scholar, neither did he) has no bearing. We won a clear victory today. Empty rhetoric has no place in arguments before SCOTUS. You play to win. According to anyone that matters, he won.

I hope he gets the opportunity to argue the cases that will inevitably follow an Individual ruling. Then maybe we'll get to hear some of the more meaty arguments you seem so impatient for.

 

[green-grizzly]

I thought Dellinger had a weak case logically, so he had to give away a lot. He did well with what he had, but the case is so bad that it didn't make him look good. His argument was only going to work with a judge that was predisposed towards his position and willing to ignore the text, and fortunately Kennedy is not anti-gun and he sees the text as straightforward. I was impressed with the fact that, knowing that he was going to lose on the militia argument, Dellinger was flexible at closing, giving away the trigger locks and just arguing the pistol ban.

I thought the SG was very effective. Hopefully the decision will be narrow and the court can avoid the whole standard of review argument. The Chief laid out that approach, and Clement agreed that it would satisfy him.

I thought Gura didn't do as well as the other two. He definately had a good understanding of the history and the details of the case, but he gave away so much that his arguments had little logical coherence. He was not flexbile; even though it was apparent that he had won on the militia issue, he was still in appeasement mode. He watered down and misconstrued Miller, and then argued that it was bad law. Why not just apply it accurately, and then argue it is bad law (the arguments that way reinforce eachother, and either result the court goes with results in a win)? His answers sometimes meandered, requiring prodding from the justices (example, Ginsburg on registration). At few times he didn't quite seem to get the drift of what the judges were asking and justices had to keep asking the same question several times (example: Souter and crime statistics). He had a witness' tendency to agree with the judge, just about falling into a "Counsel at argument conceded that ..." trap several times, but Scalia saved his bacon or he managed to pull himself out.

I am being unduly harsh on Gura of course; I have been practicing longer than him and could not have done half so well, and he was up against counsel with 70 supreme court arguments between them. He certainly has all my respect for getting the case to where it is.

Anyway, I don't think oral argument matters much, and Roberts has laid out the path that will make the concessions we made a non-issue.