POLITICS - Just 15 minutes before SCOTUS

[AJMD429]

I can't believe something as monumental as 'a pivotal Second Amendment case' only gets 15 minutes to be presented before SCOTUS. What the heck ELSE are they going to do tomorrow? How many OTHER decisions do they hear? Are the other ones anything very important?

Anyone with insight as to how this process works should enlighten the rest of us, but it sure seems strange to only get 15 minutes to present the case; I know amicus briefs have been presented, but it still seems like something meriting a great deal of time.

Of course if I was a real naive optomist, I'd just assume that since it is so cut-and-dry that the Second Amendment DOES decree that the government won't infringe on personal small arms ownership, they really don't need any more time than it takes to slap the dissenters up side the head.

[Hobie]

You should read David Hardy's blog. I think it is a good one to give you insight into the process.

[Poohgyrr]

they really don't need any more time than it takes to slap the dissenters up side the head.

And send them back to US history & gov't classes..

[J Miller]

They've probably got their minds made up already. The 15 minutes is just the closing arguments before the stacked jury.

Joe

[Modoc ED]

Better get ready to dismantle, sell, or turn in your handguns.

[Old Savage]

Free men shall never be denied the use of arms. - Thomas Jefferson

Pretty clear!

[J Miller]

Free men shall never be denied the use of arms. - Thomas Jefferson

Pretty clear!

Yeah, it's pretty clear, but those who hate guns and freedom don't care. What has happened in the past, what people have said in the past, what the founders of this country said and did in the past is lost on those who hate freedom.

We need to stop quoting the founding fathers and simply present a solid wall of resistance to all these traitors.

Joe

[Rebel1972]

It seems funny to me when the LIBs quote Thomas Jefferson( about church and state)like it is in the constitution,then turn around and ignore what he said about an armed society .It seems they pick and choose as it suits them.

[Blaine]

Tea Party, anyone?

[Jeeps]

Tea Party, anyone?

I hate tea, we should throw it in the harbor.

Wait, I don't care much for politicians either.

[kimwcook]

I think it'd be more of a revolution than a tea party.

[Texican]

Tom Gresham's Gun Talk radio program had Alan Gura the lead attorney for the Heller case on a week ago. You can download the podcast for free here:

http://guntalk.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=315562

It's insightful to the process. They discuss the history of 2A cases before the SCOTUS, the effect of the amici that have been filed, and he even mentions some of his basic strategy.

As I recall he said that he'd petitioned the court for equal time; the opposition and the solicitor general (effectively also opposition) each have 15 minutes so to be fair he should be allowed 30 minutes. We'll see.

[Modoc ED]

Here is something for us to ponder:

"Today, when a concerted effort is made to obliterate this point, it cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals - that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government - that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government." - Ayn Rand"

The reason I said, "for us to ponder" is because I doubt that SCOTUS will.

[SJPrice]

it actually plays out like this. Each side gets 30 minutes to present their case and most of that time will be spent by answering questions from the justices. The attorney general will also be allowed to speak and answer questions. He is given 15 minutes. In this case his 15 minutes will be separate time although in many cases his time would be taken from the time of the two sides. Not this case however; his 15 minutes in front of the court will not be taken from either side arguing the case. One source close to the case speculated that the attorney general may in fact spend his 15 minutes arguing against the amicus brief that was filed written by the bureaucrats in his office. I apologize for not remembering who the source was and yes, I know that is wishful thinking. This is my understanding of the overall process for this particular case. A total of 75 minutes of arguments and questions.

[FWiedner]

Might as well get used to it, questions concerning the rights of the citizens of the U.S. of A are not a priority item to our government.

The only thing that will come out of this "decision" is another incremental loss of liberty and a power grab which will make the idea of the People defending themselves from tyrannical government by force of arms a quaint fantasy repeated to children by grandparents before bed-time.

[Kismet]

Anyone with insight as to how this process works should enlighten the rest of us, but it sure seems strange to only get 15 minutes to present the case; I know amicus briefs have been presented, but it still seems like something meriting a great deal of time.

Even if they had more time, there is really nothing that can be said that hasn't already been written in the briefs. Good lawyers spent months working on those briefs and that is where the meat of any legal proceeding takes place on the appellate level. Imagine spending that amount of time writing an argument - is there really any further argument you can make without repeating yourself? The Justices (and their clerks) will have spent a ton of time reading and researching - oral arguments really just become a chance to answer the Justices' lingering questions.

Michael in NH

[Swampman]

Free men shall never be denied the use of arms. - Thomas Jefferson

I'm betting they will.

[brucew44guns]

It would be so interesting, (probably sickening) to know the deepest thoughts running around in the mind of Ruth Ginsberg tonight and the past few days as the case comes to court, and just to perhaps hear her conversation with her husband on "how she sees it all". She was one of Slick Willies choices, a real pearl, and probably a good example of more on the way if Hill Billary walks into power. These people are lower than whale manure in my opinion, that's on the bottom of the ocean.

[Tycer]

Select 'Print' in your browser menu to print this document.

©2008 Legal Times Online
Page printed from: http://www.legaltimes.com

Back to Article

Armed for Liberty

Alan Gura and Robert A. Levy
03-17-2008


Two hundred years ago, the rights secured by the first 10 amendments were so widely accepted that many of the Framers considered a Bill of Rights unnecessary. Yet the Anti-Federalists wisely insisted on a Bill of Rights, fearing that fundamental tenets of individual liberty might later be deemed inconvenient, impractical, or even dangerous.

The Constitution’s words have since weathered constant assaults from miscreants who would suppress speech, control our private lives, or deny due process — usually in the name of public safety and the greater good.

The prohibitionist attack on Second Amendment rights is thus familiar, even if the arguments against the right to keep and bear arms are demonstrably false. In District of Columbia v. Heller — a case in which we will present oral argument on Tuesday, March 18 — the Supreme Court should recognize some basic truths.

The Second Amendment is an integral part of the Bill of Rights. Read in the same familiar, straightforward manner as other constitutional provisions, it secures a meaningful individual right, a sphere of individual autonomy into which the state may not intrude without good reason and great care. Acknowledging this right does not spell anarchy, but it does mean that law-abiding adult citizens are entitled to keep ordinary functional firearms, in their own homes, for self-defense.

Gun prohibitionists bristle at the notion that private gun ownership is a social good, but their policy arguments are both unpersuasive and irrelevant.

Drug-warriors and terror-warriors advance similar arguments for truncating Fourth Amendment rights. Some moralists have little use for the establishment clause. Others would compromise the free exercise clause. But courts do not declare those constitutional provisions obsolete or undesirable.

Nor should the Supreme Court treat the Second Amendment as if it did not exist. First and foremost, the Supreme Court resolves questions of law — and as a matter of law, Heller is not a close call.

THE PEOPLE’S RIGHT

The Second Amendment guarantees a “right of the people.â€

[Bob]

My view is the outcome will be positive no matter which way it goes. If they rule in favor of the constitution - GREAT! If they rule against it, well that just means it's time for us to water the tree.
Bob

[new pig hunter]

as I've heard it said many times, "the only rights a person has are the one's your lawyer can get you."

That bit of verbage, wise or not, seems an accurate summary of the legal system. Even the founding fathers wrangled in courtrooms over the meaning of the Constitution, and it's practical application.

Our opinions regarding the meaning of the 2nd Amendment are obviously different from someone else's interpretation. Therefore, the lawyers will present their case and a group of people will make the final decision.

Don't like that system or method ?? Hey, the Constitution says that is how the system works.
And that becomes the problem: if we like the outcome, great. If we don't, we hire another lawyer to argue the case again.

Which takes us back to the vicious circle of the opening statement .....

Cheers,

Carl

[AJMD429]

It would be so interesting, (probably sickening) to know the deepest thoughts running around in the mind of Ruth Ginsberg tonight and the past few days as the case comes to court, and just to perhaps hear her conversation with her husband on "how she sees it all". She was one of Slick Willies choices, a real pearl, and probably a good example of more on the way if Hill Billary walks into power. These people are lower than whale manure in my opinion, that's on the bottom of the ocean.

From what parts I hears, it was only Scalia and GINSBERG who seemed to think the Second Amendment would apply to full auto firearms. Granted, we levergunners aren't supposed to like those noisy things, but keep in mind that if you can ban an M-16 on some pretext, then you can most certainly ban an 1895 Marlin. The lawyer on 'our' side did a miserable job, and kept reminding the court that 'reasonable' bans and restrictions and so on were perfectly ok, as long as they weren't TOTAL bans.

Perhaps Ginsberg was just trying to get him to say machine guns were protected and then somehow say how that was absurd, but she seemed to have a better grasp than our lawyer did...