Heller decided: Amicus Briefs or Re-wording?

[usmarine0352_2005]

Many people have said that D.C. vs. Heller will decided by amicus briefs, not oral arguements.

However, SCOTUS re-worded the questions put forth to them by D.C. and the lawyers for Heller. To this:

“The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”


Since SCOTUS re-worded it, wouldn't that imply that they already have an idea on what there answer to "their" question will be?

 

[JimmyN]

The SC defined the question that they would rule on. Then the briefs were submitted, based on the question posed. Nothing was changed or re-worded after the briefs were submitted.

They do base their decisions on the written briefs. The oral argument is just to clarify any questions they have, and is primarily just theater for the public. That's why Justice Thompson seldom contributes or even speaks. He doesn't believe in the oral arguments and considers it unnecessary.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I would think oral arguments satisfy the "public" aspect of the mandate for a speedy and public trial.

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood

 

[buzz_knox]

I would think oral arguments satisfy the "public" aspect of the mandate for a speedy and public trial.

Not really. Judges rules without having oral arguments all the time, and the Supremes are no different.

Oral argument is held when 1) there is a lot public interest in a subject, 2) the judge wants to assert that he/she went above and beyond to give everyone a fair shot, 3) the judge wants to see if there is anything else the plaintiff/defendant has got that will sway a decision, 4) the judge wants to smack a lawyer around a bit, or 5) some combination of the above.

 

[TexasRifleman]

The Second Amendment is a foundation of the Bill of Rights, whether you think it's collective or individual.

These Justices are very smart folks.

This is the first 2A case to come before the court in a very very long time.

Even at Robert's confirmation he said that the 2A was still "unresolved" or some such.

I suspect most of these guys had their minds made up years ago, just waiting on a case.

I doubt there is anything that could be done in a brief or in oral arguments to change their minds.

Look at it this way. YOU have an opinion on the Second, could a lawyer change it substantially no matter what he said?

I think the Justices knew how they would vote on this 20 years ago, maybe 50 years ago for a couple of them

 

[ctdonath]

DC and Heller disagreed over what the actual question was. DC's wording of the question was what I would call "malicious" - worded to given an impression of reasonableness that was far from warranted. Between that, and the court wanting to take on a unique judicial opportunity (definitively ruling on clean-slate BoR cases is exceedingly rare), SCOTUS reworded the question into something more appropriate all around.

Word & reasoning is the judges have largely made up their minds once the case is accepted. At that point they are already very familiar with the issues, know whether & why they want the case, have a good idea where they want to go with it, and probably know what the other judges are thinking as well. There is likely little information yet to come that hasn't already been well-developed in the lower courts.

Briefs are where the parties & friends can make their case most thoroughly, where they have time to craft every word and make sure every point is made perfectly (or as nearly so as their position & facts allow). If you can't make your case in writing given months to do so using a virtually unlimited staff and resources, the next phase won't do you much good (which is why J. Thomas practically ignores the next phase).

Oral arguments are the last chance for the big players to work out any loose ends. This has nothing to do with "making the case", as the case was made in written briefs. This is about a final chance to ask awkward & probing questions in an unstructured environment, being able to address & resolve things in minutes which otherwise would take months (if happen at all). This is also the only time to involve the public, shining the spotlight on proceedings of what is otherwise a very secret process; additionally, this allows for a bit of theater, giving judges a chance to show off, make the parties squirm, or outright demean plaintiff or respondent for being stupid. By this point, everything is clear, and the judges just want to know whether the parties actually believe what they wrote. While little is ever gained at this point, everything CAN be lost should something foolish be said.

Finally, the judges vote, write the verdict & dissent, and justify their conclusions however they see fit.

So for most practical purposes, when SCOTUS accepts a case, they already know what the verdict is.

 

[Kentak]

I would think oral arguments satisfy the "public" aspect of the mandate for a speedy and public trial.

You're kidding, of course.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

You're kidding, of course.

Guessing, maybe.

It's a trial of sorts, isn't it? Can you name an instance when the Court didn't hold oral arguments?

Woody

 

[buzz_knox]

It's a trial of sorts, isn't it? Can you name an instance when the Court didn't hold oral arguments?

It's not a trial, it's a hearing. And all courts, including the Supreme Court, issue decisions without oral argument. Oral argument is generally granted at the discretion of the courts, and isn't generally mandatory.

 

[Vibe]

Can you name an instance when the Court didn't hold oral arguments?

US v Miller?

 

[ctdonath]

Nope. Oral arguments WERE held; the appellant showed up, but the respondent didn't.

 

[Richmond]

speedy trial

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

The 6th Amendment provides for the trial rights of the accused in a criminal case. Strictly speaking, there is no constitutional right to appellate proceedings, although there can be due process or equal protection issues where there is an appellate process.

Actually, most appellate cases are decided without oral argument.