In the end though, at the expense of a 3rd of his time, it provides a hedge if the bench doesn't like his logic...
So, we get two advocates rather than one - two briefs rather than one.
What's known as a "belt & suspenders" strategy.
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
In the end though, at the expense of a 3rd of his time, it provides a hedge if the bench doesn't like his logic...
So, we get two advocates rather than one - two briefs rather than one.
What's known as a "belt & suspenders" strategy.
I don't know that I'd call it a strategy given that we have two separate plaintiffs and three cases. It more like your wife making you wear a belt and still having your mom make you wear suspenders.
That's where I disagree...And I don't think we would have given anything up by not having the NRA there.
So this lawyer Paul Clement is a whore. He goes where the money and publicity go. Is this really a surprise to anyone? That's what lawyers do.
That's where I disagree...
There is the truth.
There is what is right.
There is the law.
There is what a judge decides.
These are all independent and lately mutually exclusive things.
What is gained is that we don't know what odd-ball coalition of 5:4 we might get on incorporation (assuming its 5:4 not 4:5 ). As such, having as many means as possible to get to the "right" result regardless of how narrow, tortured, bizarre and otherwise "wrong" the courts thinking is a good thing.
We have, in the NRA's "in the alternative," a reserve chute that would not otherwise be there.
So this lawyer Paul Clement is a whore. He goes where the money and publicity go. Is this really a surprise to anyone? That's what lawyers do.
NOTHING is "foregone" with this...There's really no chance of not winning this case (i.e. incorporating Heller). I was fortunate enough to sit through one of Gura's mock argument sessions with some really smart constitutional law types. The practical outcome of McDonald is foregone conclusion. We're now onto the rarefied either of constitutional law.
I think this is an unfair comment. Everyone appearing before a court deserves competent legal representation.
NOTHING is "foregone" with this...
Well, there you go again - bringing logic and a grasp of fundamental rights into a chest-thumping contest. You clearly lack the keen insight and blinding mental acuity Glasgow possesses; capable of discerning The Truth upon a mere reading of newspaper clippings and dispensing with superfluities like due process.
The chances of a 5:4 against far outweigh those of a "planet killer" asteroid.Well you’re correct in that anything could happen. But then again we could all be wiped out by a massive asteroid hitting the earth. But I’ll continue to believe that to NOT incorporate in this case would require the SC to make an unthinkably radical departure from modern precedent.
The SC doesn’t normally take routine cases. They take cases to settle major legal issues which have broad scope and importance.
Double plus good brother...Sorry, I'll try to fit in and be less disruptive in the future.
Sorry, I'll try to fit in and be less disruptive in the future.
The Pandora’s Box is POI because if the court buys that argument it potentially changes a lot of stuff. That’s also the reason the court granted certiorari to McDonald and NOT the two NRA cases. The underlying issue – incorporation – is the same for all three cases. But McDonald has the hook that makes it interesting for the court. If we didn’t have that, these cases would make the rounds of the district courts for the next half century.
What's that hook?
A hook is a musical idea, often a short riff, passage, or phrase, that is used in popular music to make a song appealing and to "catch the ear of the listener"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hook_(music)
ETA: Oh 'that' hook.
The McDonald brief puts POI front and center where as the other cases rely on equal protection. By accepting McDonald they get to hear and perhaps rule on something pertaining to POI which was all but gutted by the court's decision in the Slaughter House Cases (pun intended). If they accepted one of the other cases this would be a routine matter of incorporation via the 14thA equal protection clause. BFD - not something that's particularly interesting from a legal point of view.
Oh, I thought there was more than just the PoI that you were referring to. I thought they were involved in two of the three cases and not just mcdonald.
It's a decent theory. I think where we disagree is on the unity of "the court's" mind.The 7th circuit opinion covered three cases. McDonald v Chicago, NRA v Chicago, and NRA v Oak Park. The questions were the same, so one decision. But they were not consolidated. Each petitioned the SC separately. My theory as to why only McDonald got in is just that: My theory. I pulled it out of now where earlier today, but I'm sticking to it. I like it, and it makes sense.
It's a decent theory. I think where we disagree is on the unity of "the court's" mind.
Unless you are a Fudd and believe in the inanity of "hunter's rights", then there really shouldn't be any difference.To some degree I've moved on from my interest as a gun owner and have become kind of of constitutional law groupie.