Discussion in 'Legal' started by ctdonath, Mar 18, 2008.
Thanks for the running dialogue, at Camp Victory the streamming video and audio is BLOCKED.
The oral arguments do very little influencing of the Justices.
They will spend WEEKS reading the briefs and researching how they each vote on this.
This is one of many steps in the process, a chance for the Justices to clear up minor things or hear positions they might not have thought of.
The DC team is doing the post game analysis......they can do no wrong.
By the end, even Dellinger was assuming the second amendment protects an individual right; he was just arguing the standard of review.
He had a lot of opportunities but, as pointed out earlier, he didn't capitalize on them. Perhaps that is inexperience but I think he just had a poor oral strategy. It felt like he was trying to restate his brief rather than be prepared for fundamental questions. His ridiculous statement that MGs are not lineal descendents is a perfect example of how poor he prepared to answer questions. He had the justices and the SG on his side and went with a weak lay off since he wasn't prepared.
What's the fuss about? Lanier the DC police chief tells us that there isn't a complete ban! Cops, federal cops, retired cops, and private cops can get licenses for pistols.
Fenty - "More guns = more crime"
I thought it funny that the Mayor of DC came out after the arguements and attributed the declining crime rates in DC to the handgun ban:
1) Crime went through the roof after the ban.
2) It is still higher now than when the ban was enacted.
3) The mayor would like to ignore the gentrification of the city as having anything to do with crime rates.
now all the real fun begins with all the SCJ's writing opinions, then criticizing each others opinions.. etc etc.
More time to focus on "Obama the Healer"... um pardon me... "Obama the Healed because the US has matured to a point where it is ready for a African American President"
More on that later, I am fired up today.
Brady Guy - the majority of the court will not give the pro gun people a ruling that will an assult of the nation's gun laws
Henigan says that an individual ruling could be used as "an assault weapon" against our country. I almost pissed myself.
Ooooh, a little freudian slip on Fenty's part. They asked him if he had any legislation planned in case the DC Gov't lost the appeal.
He said "We are operating on a plan of success, but we will cross that bridge when we come to it".
OMG...Dellinger just said that there's a "huge issues of what's reasonable, regardless of Constitutional rights"
Honestly the Machine gun portion did not disturb me at all . The questions of the Justices seemed to speak to a desire to incorporate them into the individual rights purview of the 2nd and if i am not mistaken they may well do this when speaking to the scope of the right irregardless of the argument put forth by either side .
Is there a live audio feed?
LOL! Fenty "shudders to think what would happen" if their handgun ban is finally struck down. I guess he's afraid that D.C. would cease being the relatively violent crime-free Utopia that it is today.
Transcript just put up:
MAn, Bob Levy's ears make him look like Dumbo.
EDIT: Found it
One can lie about the things that the media support and get away with it. A lie gone unquestioned by a room full of reporters appears to the casual observer as truth. A truth that is questioned over and over again by the media ultimately makes the truth-teller look like a liar (it makes the truth teller frustrated, which appears to the casual observer as deception).
So, the media can make lies appear as truths, and make truths appear as lies by the way they report things... all the while claiming the high ground.
It is ok to ban plastic guns that are specifically designed to defeat metal detectors??????
Call 202-585-3886 to vote NO to the SC upholding the DC ban.
It's also the time when the swaying of opinions will begin. Everyone from law clerks to justices will be lobbying for their position.
That 1:37:00 is epilog to about a half-million written words of argument already submitted.
This wasn't a court hearing like you're thinking, where both sides present their full cases.
This was a chance for the judges to ask some very pointed questions to tie up loose ends, give everyone a tiny bit of face-time, express some emotion that otherwise would never be shown, chew out sides for idiocy, and generally provide a little theater to an otherwise opaque process.
Separate names with a comma.