Good Hunting... from Varmint Al
Posted on 02/25/2008 11:02:48 AM PST by 2nd amendment mama
Gun Case Argument Schedule is Set Tony Mauro
02-25-2008
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 on 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.
Cruz had argued to the Court that he should be heard on behalf of 31 states favoring a broad view of the Second Amendment, because Solicitor General Paul Clement's brief in the case is "contrary" to the position of gun rights supporters. While Clement supports an "individual right" view of the Second Amendment, he advocates a standard of review that critics say will allow too many gun regulations to stand. Clement also urged vacating and remanding the lower court ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in the case, the first ever to strike down a gun regulation on Second Amendment grounds. Walter Dellinger of O'Melveny & Myers, who will argue in defense of the D.C. handgun ban, had opposed the Texas motion, but supported Clement's request for added argument time.
It is very common for the Court to say yes to a request from the solicitor general for argument time as amicus curiae no matter where he stands. As for states, in recent years they have won argument time with greater frequency — four times last term alone — though this term the success rate has been lower. One factor working against Texas in the D.C. case is that states are not unanimous on the Second Amendment issue; New York, joined by Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Puerto Rico, filed a brief on the gun control side.
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.
Tony Mauro can be contacted at tmauro@alm.com. The following article originally appeared on The Blog of Legal Times.
Ping
Maybe they just want to get to it. Roberts may see the handwriting on the wall with the next few years worth of nominees coming and wants this settled now.
No biggie.
The SG isn’t on anybody’s side. His brief neatly shredded DC’s view, said the lower court’s verdict favoring Mr. Heller was basically correct, then essentially said “...but we don’t like where this is going, so please make up some BS lesser standard of review, and throw it back to the lower courts to be buried for another decade or so.”
Being a quasi-neutral representative of the federal government, it does make sense to bring him in to ask what the long-range effects of an appropriate verdict are, and why SCOTUS shouldn’t apply strict scrutiny they way they always do to BoR cases.
Leaving Texas et al out makes sense because they’re highly biased, which in being fair would mean letting NY et al speak, which just piles on more time & more hot air. The whole point of oral arguments is a last chance for the primary parties to clarify loose ends. Everyone else has had plenty of opportunity to make their case in their 9,000-word amicus briefs.
Good Hunting... from Varmint Al
” states are not unanimous on the Second Amendment issue; New York, joined by Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Puerto Rico, filed a brief on the gun control side. “
So now Puerto Rico is considered a state??
Being subject directly to the federal government (like DC), PR is very interested in DC winning.
Why? So they can enjoy the same low crime rates found in DC?
On behalf of my client, the American Civil Rights Union (NOT the ACLU), I helped write one of the briefs filed in favor of the 2nd Amendment. www.theacru.org
Congressman Billybob
“Being subject directly to the federal government (like DC), PR is very interested in DC winning.”
That may be true, but I was referring to the reporting of states filing briefs for gun control and they included PR as a state.
It always amazed me that the Second, stating a right that “shall not be infringed”, has suffered so much under the boot of progressives, yet the right to an abortion, a right that lacks any similar supporting language (in fact, not any language), is so well developed in the mind of progressives.
If you helped to write a brief in support of the individual right, my hat is way off to you, for I have read all the briefs I could find and each of them are wonderful in their own unique ways. If Heller is decided for an individual right, I hope we can move to the status of an incorporated right, so the RKBA in states like Kali and New York are no longer in doubt.
Thank you, sir!
Heller _gets_ 30 minutes to argue for the 2ndA.
The US SG gets 15 minutes to address long-range effects to existing laws.
DC gets 30 minutes also.
Of course they did...
Sometimes the Court justices will scrutinize Party A’s argument in a way that convinces the average listener that they have made up their mind against Party A. Then when the decision is released, Party A prevails. By providing an additional 15 minutes for a viewpoint between the two opposing sides, and then explaining why that viewpoint is flawed, they have effectively covered their bases and cleared the way for an all out victory for the 2nd Amendment. Confidence is high!
(Just a rumor mind you)
More time means more questions from the judges, too. Maybe they have read all the briefs and want to question the gun grabbers to see if they can actually defend their position.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.