Quoting Richmond in post #42:
With the caveat that I think “conservative” or “liberal” won't always cover the complexities of the justices themselves as well as the issues before them, it is clear that the current makeup of the Supreme Court is split 4-4, with Justice Kennedy considered the “centrist” swing vote.
Expect a number of 5-4 decisions this term, with Justice Kennedy ruling with the majority along with Thomas, Roberts, Scalia and Alito.
I agree with this assessment. However, from reading Gura's briefs, etc., it seems very clear to me that he's brilliantly and carefully steering the issue at hand to be as narrow as possible, and thereby picking up one or more of the predicted "liberal" votes. Even the "liberal" judges don't want to look the fools by conjuring up elaborate, convoluted explanations designed to justify their avoidance of the obvious, straightforward, and parsimonious answer...the CORRECT answer. The more obvious the answer, the harder you have to work to justify making the wrong choice. I cannot help but think that this is part of their game-plan.
Examples:
From the Question Presented -
Whether the Second Amendment guarantees lawabiding, adult individuals a right to keep..."
From the Summary -
The case is further suitable for review because the question it presents is quite narrow. Contrary to Petitioners’ tendentious [written to promote a cause or support a biased viewpoint] formulation of the question presented in their petition, the question presented by this case is whether the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep basic functional firearms, including ordinary handguns, within the home. In resolving that narrow, specific question, this Court need not decide the full extent of Second Amendment rights nor even determine the appropriate level of constitutional scrutiny for regulations that implicate the Second Amendment.
The challenged laws are thus an absolute negation of the people’s right to keep arms. If the right exists, the laws must yield.
He (they) are doing an excellent - an extraordinary - job in directing this case toward one and only one clearly evident answer (that the right guaranteed by the 2A applies to individual Americans).
By the way, has anyone else noted the two references to incorporation made within Heller's response to DC's petition? Good stuff in there.
