McDonald v. Chicago oral arguments--question

[LkWinnipesaukee]

I plan on attending the oral arguments of McDonald v. Chicago at the Supreme Court. They start at 10, so I was wondering what time I should be there to get in line.

Will this be a more of a monumental case in the public's eyes, or is it simply "the incorporation of the Second Amendment," in which the oral arguments themselves will not be memorable?

In other words, how early should I be?

 

[Trebor]

I expect it to be packed and you might not get a seat, based on the interest in Heller earlier.

I'd say, the earlier, the better.

 

[Sebastian the Ibis]

I would plan on spending the night.

 

[wishin]

Good for you. Get there as early as possible. Wish it were me.

 

[testosterone]

I didn't even know it was possible for the public to sit in supreme court, that's awesome.

You just show up and get in line, if there is a seat they let you in? really?

I'm goin if that's the case.

 

[ServiceSoon]

I watched the Heller oral arguments from the comfort of my own home, while tread milling and drinking a beer. You can't beat that with a gavel.

In this case viewing McDonald would require going to Illinoi'ed, and even worse Chicago. Besides, it's not like they decide the case that day.

 

[legaleagle_45]

You just show up and get in line, if there is a seat they let you in? really?

Yep.

I'm goin if that's the case.

Plan on camping out in line overnight.... unless you are a member of the SCOTUS Bar (an attorney licensed to proctice in front of SCOTUS), in which case you get preferred seating and need only show up at around 4 am.

 

[ming]

I watched the Heller oral arguments from the comfort of my own home, while tread milling and drinking a beer. You can't beat that with a gavel.

In this case viewing McDonald would require going to Illinoi'ed, and even worse Chicago. Besides, it's not like they decide the case that day.

SCOTUS meets in D.C., so you won't have to go to Chicago. You only need to visit Chicago if you would like to see Mr. McDonald in the flesh.

 

[Phatty]

Doesn't the SC have overflow rooms where the audio is piped in for those members of the public or press that can't fit in the main courtroom?

 

[Gatorbait]

ServiceSoon wrote: "I watched the Heller oral arguments from the comfort of my own home, while tread milling and drinking a beer. You can't beat that with a gavel." Tell me, SS, do you also have an imaginary friend that you talk to just before you fall asleep at nap time?

 

[TexasRifleman]

Doesn't the SC have overflow rooms where the audio is piped in for those members of the public or press that can't fit in the main courtroom?

The best way to see this "live" without travel is

http://www.scotusblog.com/

You will get pretty much real time play by play from there on the day of oral arguments.

 

[legaleagle_45]

You will get pretty much real time play by play from there on the day of oral arguments.

Yep, that is what I did for Heller. They can be funny too. I recall their live feed on decision day when they were announcing the decisions and providing commentary. Heller was among three or 4 cases left at the very end of the term and, of course, SCOTUS released it last. After all the decisions had been announced other than Heller, scotusblog announced that "well we can shut it down now, all of the important decisions have been released". Of course, more people were "tuned into" scotusblog that day than scotusblog had ever had just because of Heller and they knew people were on pins and needles awaiting that case.

 

[ServiceSoon]

SCOTUS meets in D.C., so you won't have to go to Chicago. You only need to visit Chicago if you would like to see Mr. McDonald in the flesh.

I thought there were a number of scotus districts and the Chicago was separate from DC?

Tell me, SS, do you also have an imaginary friend that you talk to just before you fall asleep at nap time?

They broadcasted the oral arguments on CSpan.

 

[Phatty]

I thought there were a number of scotus districts and the Chicago was separate from DC?

Nope, there is just the one D.C. location.

They broadcasted the oral arguments on CSpan.

Audio only. The SC doesn't allow cameras into their courtroom.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I thought there were a number of scotus districts and the Chicago was separate from DC?

That is true for Federal District Courts and Circuit Appeal Courts, but there is only one Supreme Court. This case has already been through all those lower courts.

 

[hirundo82]

I thought there were a number of scotus districts and the Chicago was separate from DC?

There are a total of 13 US courts of appeal ("circuits")--11 for various geographic regions (the 7th Circuit, based in Chicago, previously heard McDonald), one for DC, and a Federal Circuit that hears various cases (patents and such) nationwide. The Supreme Court is where the decisions of the circuit courts can be appealed.

Decisions from state supreme courts can also be appealed to SCOTUS if the case involves US Constitutional questions (rather than just pertaining to the state constitution). Additionally, disputes between the states can be heard directly by the Supreme Court ("original jurisdiction");SCOTUS just handed down a decision in an original jurisdiction case regarding water rights between North Carolina and South Carolina.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Jeez, does everybody know this except me? Thanks all for calling me out and educating me. It does a mind good.

Whether it's Chicago or DC, I wouldn't patronize either location.

Audio only. The SC doesn't allow cameras into their courtroom.

There was video. It was a screen that said who was talking, but there was video. AFterwards everybody went outside the court room for a press release. Fenty spoke. He reminded me of Xerxes. The police chief spoke too, who I recall was a female.

 

[Phatty]

There was video. It was a screen that said who was talking, but there was video.

I realize that the CSPAN channel wasn't simply black. My point is that a person wanting to watch the oral arguments will not be satisfied by an audio-only feed. The oral arguments are not televised. If CSPAN chooses to put footage of dancing polar bears on the television screen while they play the audio of the arguments, that doesn't change my point that there is no video of the arguments.

 

[ServiceSoon]

I understand your point Phatty. Personal preference.

 

[Birdmang]

Isn't it all public record and you can hear it online, for all of us not close enough to attend?

 

[ServiceSoon]

Birdmang: Yes. For some people only seeing is believing, actually they probably just want to watch history in the making.

 

[Birdmang]

Oh I would love to go and watch any hearings in the Supreme Court...I would love to be a fly on the wall in the cloak room, where all the magic actually happens, but that wont happen.

Listening to it is all I can do for now...