DC Fires Heller case lawyer

[Deanimator]

Never complain when your opponent does something stupid.

When Hitler swerved one army group across the paths of two of his others, I doubt Stalin, FDR, OR Churchill called to complain.

 

[Bubbles]

What if the Anti's have some hotshot genius lawyer who will now fight their case.

Based on the comments posted by Washington Post readers, they don't. Morrison was fired for political reasons, not because he was incompetent.

 

[Igloodude]

Actaully they DO apparently have a D.C. national guard (I was kinda surprised myself). http://dcng.ngb.army.mil/ Not that it matters, as the 2nd has nothing to do with the national guard anyway, just putting it out there since it came up, and I was surprised and found it a little interesting a federal enclave would have its own national guard likes states do...

Cool, and a little bizarre - are they automatically called up for federal service, or something?

And yeah, you know and I know the 2nd has nothing to do with the NG, but the "collective rights" crowd thinks otherwise, that was sorta the point, which has been shattered upon the bedrock of facts. Oh well. I still have some time to make 2008 a good year, rhetorically.

 

[Megistopoda]

What if the Anti's have some hotshot genius lawyer who will now fight their case.

...

Based on the comments posted by Washington Post readers, they don't. Morrison was fired for political reasons, not because he was incompetent.

Agreed. That hotshot "genius" lawyer is precisely Morrison, whom they just fired immediately after he'd finished the final draft of the 15,000 word brief they are now forced to use (submission tomorrow).

One thing that interests me is the following (taken from the Wash Post article):

"The brief we are submitting is a fabulous brief, a winning brief by a great team," Nickles said. "We will not miss a step. . . . Alan is a very good lawyer, but I decided to move in a different direction."

This strikes me as interesting because first he's praising that fabulous brief (authored by Morrison and that they are forced to use now, whether they like it or not). The kicker....Nickles has "decided to move in a different direction." Tell me, how does he change direction in any meaningful way at this point...this late in the game...with that brief due tomorrow? Something just doesn't seem consistent in his statements.

 

[ctdonath]

I think that both sides filed appeals. So if DC withdraws there's still the other to go forward.

Not quite. DC filed the appeal. Heller filed a brief in support of that appeal. Heller does not get to file an appeal per se.

 

[Robert Hairless]

ctdonath:

Not quite. DC filed the appeal. Heller filed a brief in support of that appeal. Heller does not get to file an appeal per se.

Thanks for the correction. So the question remains then. Can DC now withdraw its appeal and, if so, what are the possibilities?

 

[madmike]

I was thinking more like Montgomery, AL, with the Guard standing between DC cops intent on arresting gun owners, and those gun owners.

 

[DonP]

The odds on DC trying to drop the appeal are close to zero.

They are running this like it was a political campaign and not like an appeal before the highest court in the land. IMHO, they actually believe that somehow imaginary public sentiment and their version of what's best for their citizens more than offsets any petty legal arguments.

Here in Chicago we see it happen all the time. Daley ignored the Federal Aviation Administration and bulldozed Meigg's field, a working airport in the middle of the night, and paid the fine for his decision with taxpayer dollars.

Characters like Fenty and Daley are cut from the same egotistical cloth and don't think the Federal laws apply to them. Of course they depend on Federal $ to keep their leaky socialist utopias afloat

Now DC has inserted politics into the mix.

I think they have a very weak brief and next to nothing legal to stand on and they are trying to bluff their way through this.

I also think they will bluff their way right off the cliff and have their rear handed to them by SCOTUS. The only catch is if they find a prestigious law firm to jump in and take over the case for them pro bono. But I'm betting that Fenty's ego won't allow that to happen.

It's more important to Fenty to be able to stand in front of the microphones and tell his voters how he "stood up for their safety and how those evil cabal of right wing zealots on SCOTUS don't care about their safety".

Oh, and at some point Jesse Jackson and/or Al Sharpton will make it a race issue.

 

[madmike]

Yup, that's how I see it, Don.

"Our council VOTED! How can a judge tell us we don't have the right to control our city and do what's best for people? This law saves LIVES!"

Even if that were true, I can probably prove slavery reduces crime. That wouldn't make it constitutional.

 

[cyclist]

What would it take for the Supreme Court to hold the DC side in contempt of court?
I'm thinking that playing politics might be the case, but then there was that whole election issue not too long ago so maybe that wouldn't do it. But I'm wondering if taking their (DC's) side in a totally new direction after firing someone would be sufficient.

Somehow I don't think the Supreme Court likes to be messed with, especially once something in their docket gets to this point of the process.

 

[Don Gwinn]

The inside money seems to be saying Morrison was their hotshot expert.

 

[Cosmoline]

Changing your argument in the middle of the appeal isn't grounds for contempt, it's just grounds for getting the snot kicked out of you.

 

[Robert Hairless]

The inside money seems to be saying Morrison was their hotshot expert.

No inside money here but that's what I understood too. So none of these recent events make any sense to me.

It looks to me as if a bunch of arrogant people who spouted nonsense at each other and at the public too have suddenly panicked now that their day in court is approaching. From the outside it reminds me of the old game "Who has the pickle?" and it's reached the point at which the players start running around shouting at each other:

"Who has the pickle?"

"I don't have the pickle! I thought you had the pickle!"

"Me? You said you had the pickle!"

"No I din't. I distinctly heard you say you had the pickle!"

And so on.​

Could this be?

 

[cyclist]

Are any of the remaining DC legal staff approved to present before the Supreme Court? I'd think they'd have to have that base covered before dismissing someone.

Or is this a variation to the pickle game mentioned above:
"I thought you were approved"
"Me? I thought he was"
"Nope, not me, how about her?"
"Nope, not me either"
"Oh oh"

Could this end as simply as DC not showing up for the trial?

And will this be televised? Would almost be worth getting cable TV service to view it.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Televised? I never thought of that. I certainly hope so. Does anyone know?

"Who has the pickle?" is great fun for spectators too.

 

[Broadhead]

And I wonder what happens if they get to SCOTUS without a lawyer?

In the Miller decision, I have read, Miller couldn't afford to hire a lawyer, so his side didn't show up at all. That didn't stop the Supremes from issuing a decision.

 

[Henry Bowman]

Are any of the remaining DC legal staff approved to present before the Supreme Court? I'd think they'd have to have that base covered before dismissing someone.

Undoubtedly. All it takes to be admitted to practice before the SCOTUS is 1) admission to the bar of any state or DC; 2) signatures of two attorneys already admitted; and 3) $25.

Could this end as simply as DC not showing up for the trial?

No, not at this stage.

And will this be televised? Would almost be worth getting cable TV service to view it.

Absolutely not. You can, however, get audio recordings of the arguments after the fact.

A SCOTUS brief is a collaborative effort of a team. The disagreement could have been substantive, or could have been limited to who was going to get the "honor" of making the oral argument for the petitioner. The "different direction" could be just that.

 

[madmike]

DC genuinely believes its "but we have a LAW!" argument is valid.

My guess is the expert told them he needed more than that.

After that, either they fired him for not having purity of thought (typical communist theory), or wanted their boy to have the "glory."

Otherwise, he may have told them to go screw, in which case they don't want to admit the case is shaky, so they claim it was THEIR idea.

This is going to be like the Kerry campaign. Lots of people who KNOW they're going to win, right up to the point where they don't.

 

[Don Gwinn]

I'd hate to make more of this than it is. Read Black Bart's post and think it over. It seems pretty reasonable to me.

I think on balance this is a good thing for the good guys, but it's not going to flip the whole case.

 

[george29]

I may be off base but I wonder how much the NRA actually wants this case to be heard? If it goes in our favor will the NRA lose membership? If it goes in our favor will the Brady Bunch lose even more of their appeal to their dwindling crowd? I think the only ones that are interested in this playing out to the end are real Americans. Maybe if we win this we can get the Pledge of Allegiance restored in our schools afterwards?

 

[madmike]

Yes, all states and territories have a National Guard, most have an Air National Guard, and those near oceans and lakes usually have a Naval Militia.

And yes, like all such units, they are FEDERALLY controlled, unless and until the Prez or Congress authorize the governor or other exec to use them, and how.

 

[Cougfan2]

All I know is I'd give a significant amount of money to be a fly on the wall in the Brady HQ right now. I bet they're s******g their panties about now.

 

[Henry Bowman]

I think on balance this is a good thing for the good guys, but it's not going to flip the whole case.

FWIW, I agree.

 

[madmike]

The NRA tried very hard several times to derail it.

Cynical types think the NRA stands to lose its ability to generate income through agitation about "loss of rights."

I think it's more a case of being afraid to fight, because they might lose.

We also might win.

Bring it on.

 

[madmike]

Read the Brady news briefs and releases. They ARE karking their drawers, because they know their case is not only shaky, but insupportable. They're hoping they can find 5 justices who agree with the theory that, "you're allowed to defend yourself with weapons, as long as the government gets to decide which weapons, which might mean only rocks and sticks."