SCOTUS gives anti gunners side an edge ?

[bg]

Maybe this has already been posted, but it looks
like the Supreme Court and already given a break
to the anti-gunner's side in the Heller case..>
excerpt
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2008/02/gun-case-argume.html

In a brief order on today's order list the Supreme Court dashed the hopes of gun rights advocates who hoped to have two lawyers and additional time arguing their cause before the Supreme Court when it hears arguments in the historic case D.C. v. Heller March 18.

Without explanation, the Court denied the motion of Texas Solicitor General R. Ted Cruz for argument time on the side of Alan Gura of Gura & Possessky, who has argued the pro-Second Amendment position from the start of the case.

But the Court did agree to give Solicitor General Paul Clement 15 minutes to argue, in addition to the 30 minutes for each side in the case.

The Court's action can be read as a small but not insignificant victory for supporters of D.C.'s handgun control ordinance at issue in the case.

So, even though Clement's brief lends support to both sides, the net effect of today's Court action is that the justices will hear 45 minutes of advocacy from those who want the lower court ruling eliminated, and 30 minutes from those who want it upheld.

What the heck is this ?

 

[ctdonath]

It's the federal gov't being given time to comment on the impact any ruling will have on other laws.

The SG's brief was hardly friendly to DC, essentially asking SCOTUS to find some way to uphold tossing DC's ban while maintaining other federal bans (not that the SG had the slightest viable suggestion how this may be done).

 

[romma]

It's the federal gov't being given time to comment on the impact any ruling will have on other laws.

Irrelevant! If the right is declared individual, those laws should stand or hopefully fall on their own!

 

[ArmedBear]

If the right is declared individual, those laws should stand or hopefully fall on their own!

True enough.

What I read of the SG's brief sounded akin to:

"Well, we have to agree that racial discrimination in schools is unconstitutional, morally wrong, and generally repugnant. Those who support it have no good argument.

"However, like, dude. Dude. DUDE! Like, if you rule the only way that makes sense here, we'll have to, like, let the Negroes go to school with our nice little white kids. I mean, years of segregation have worked great for us, and it's a lot easier for the cops, too, since they can just arrest any black kid they see going to the white school. What will we do?!?

"Can't you smart boys (and girl) up there figger out some way to rule that segregation is illegal, but without making us let the Negroes into our SCHOOLS, for chrissakes? Like, DUDE!"

BTW this is being discussed here: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=343001

 

[redneckrepairs]

"However, like, dude. Dude. DUDE! Like, if you rule the only way that makes sense here, we'll have to, like, let the Negroes go to school with our nice little white kids. I mean, years of segregation have worked great for us, and it's a lot easier for the cops, too, since they can just arrest any black kid they see going to the white school. What will we do?!?"

Quite possibly the best summation of the SG brief i have seen to date thanks for the comic relief on the issue .

 

[bg]

Seems like I'm always late to dinner here..Maybe a
Mod will delete this thread for me..Thanks, bg