Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Live Replay of SCOTUS Oral Arguments in DC v. Heller (2A case)
C-SPAN ^ | March 18, 2007 | C-SPAN

Posted on 03/18/2008 9:25:56 AM PDT by NinoFan

http://www.cspan.org/watch/cs_cspan_wm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: 2a; banglist; dc; guns; heller; parker; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 541-557 next last
To: Virginia Ridgerunner

Clement is trying to please both sides and is coming out looking like the Court Jester. He’d be better served to just sit down and shut up. Souter is forcing him to elaborate his twisted stance and Clement is folding like a deck chair.


61 posted on 03/18/2008 10:03:30 AM PDT by BCR #226 (The BS stops when the hammer drops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: 668 - Neighbor of the Beast

Not a legal eagle but as I understand it, it’s FAR too late for withdraw and it was the moment that Heller appealed as well.

Mike


62 posted on 03/18/2008 10:04:44 AM PDT by BCR #226 (The BS stops when the hammer drops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: 668 - Neighbor of the Beast

Not a legal eagle, but I think that once SCOTUS has it and arguments are heard the dice are thrown neither party can withdraw.


63 posted on 03/18/2008 10:04:55 AM PDT by Domandred (McCain's 'R' is a typo that has never been corrected)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: 668 - Neighbor of the Beast
Nope.

Scalia seems to mention the Scots often:

Although the more cautious Jacobites did not wish to take part in the Prince's enterprise, the Government has been at pains to keep them under restraint, since three-quarters of the whole nation is still attached to the House of Stuart. And so two laws, both of great importance, have been passed. One is to abolish the jurisdictions of the nobility and free their vassals from the services which they owe to them in accordance with the traditional ways of the Kingdom. The other is to disarm all Highlanders without exception, and to force them to change their dress. The purpose of the first of these laws is to deprive the nobility of their most cherished rights; of the second to deprive the whole nation of a militia which until now has been its greatest safeguard. The Scots are well aware of the purpose and the consequences of these laws. Those who have recently come across assure us that they have fired everyone with indignation and that even the Whigs look on them as manifest breaches of the Treaty of Union with England.

64 posted on 03/18/2008 10:05:05 AM PDT by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: meandog
Clement lost all credibility with me when he began to argue that strict scrutiny is not the appropriate standard of review.

No one will be able to make a logical, historically supportable argument that the second amendment does not protect a fundamental individual right.

65 posted on 03/18/2008 10:05:10 AM PDT by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: All

Loved Kennedy’s sarcastic question there!


66 posted on 03/18/2008 10:05:42 AM PDT by NinoFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #67 Removed by Moderator

To: NinoFan

Right now I’m feeling an 8-1 decision in our favor. Could of course change in the next few minutes.


68 posted on 03/18/2008 10:07:46 AM PDT by Domandred (McCain's 'R' is a typo that has never been corrected)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan

God Bless Justice Scalia. He just threw a hard ball at Clement. Clement didn’t do himself any favors by not allowing Ginsburg to interupt him either.


69 posted on 03/18/2008 10:07:47 AM PDT by BCR #226 (The BS stops when the hammer drops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: BCR #226
Oooh. Clement argues against strict scrutiny in the 2nd Amendment because there's always been regulation against firearms.

Alito comes back with 'Well, there's regulation against the First Amendment in that we don't permit libel, but that regulation doesn't keep the 1st Amendment from enjoying the protection of strict scrutiny'.

Clement coughs water out of his nose.

70 posted on 03/18/2008 10:07:50 AM PDT by The KG9 Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

Comment #71 Removed by Moderator

To: Abundy
Clement lost all credibility with me when he began to argue that strict scrutiny is not the appropriate standard of review.

Clement is effectively asking the SCOTUS to rewrite the DC law, literally requesting legislating from the bench.

72 posted on 03/18/2008 10:08:31 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (Grovelnator Schwarzenkaiser, fashionable fascism one charade at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Domandred

Huh! Seems odd that neither party can withdraw, however elevated the station at which the appeal is heard.


73 posted on 03/18/2008 10:08:34 AM PDT by 668 - Neighbor of the Beast (Are you sick of hearing at-the-end-of-the-day?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

Comment #74 Removed by Moderator

To: NinoFan

Scalia just nailed Clement on the gun lock non-sense, specifically with the question that if an intruder broke into a home, would the home owner actually have time to find and unlock his gun and confront the intruder?


75 posted on 03/18/2008 10:08:44 AM PDT by Virginia Ridgerunner ("We must not forget that there is a war on and our troops are in the thick of it!"--Duncan Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Yeah, in a nutshell, DC is being chewed up and spit out.

Mike


76 posted on 03/18/2008 10:08:53 AM PDT by BCR #226 (The BS stops when the hammer drops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Clement tips the gov’s hand...he acknowledges that the federal firearms laws wouldn’t survive a strict scrutiny analysis...


77 posted on 03/18/2008 10:09:28 AM PDT by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Dave, check out the link above to the Live SCOTUS blog. It’ll fill you in...!


78 posted on 03/18/2008 10:09:37 AM PDT by Virginia Ridgerunner ("We must not forget that there is a war on and our troops are in the thick of it!"--Duncan Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner

Ginsburg just slapped Clement with the strict vs. moderate scrutiny issue.

I see a lot of bans being destroyed by this case.


79 posted on 03/18/2008 10:10:26 AM PDT by BCR #226 (The BS stops when the hammer drops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Simply.

The proponents of the DC haven't really convinced anyone on the court.

Ginsberg is awake and actually breathing and even asking questions.

80 posted on 03/18/2008 10:10:28 AM PDT by Pistolshot (Remember, no matter how bad your life is, someone is watching and enjoying your suffering.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 541-557 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson