Supreme Court

[Chills1994]

^^^ or an Air Force for that matter, seeing how only the Army and/or Navy are specifically spelled out in the Constitution.

Injecting some levity to the discussion:

I'm keeping my fingers crossed and knocking on wood that there will NOT be any mass shootings (churches, schools, malls, sporting events, etc. ) between now and June/July when SCOTUS comes out with a ruling.

[Flexmoney]

Carlos,

So, your take is a win, without scrutiny or definition...

That would seem to be a tweak, then? Basically, DC went too far. Not saying what "too far" is...just that they went there.

?

[hitman]

Sometimes you have to wonder about the opposing view of the case, but then again it looks like they are preparing for

defeat or at least trying to feather their nest before they go out of buisness.

From the Brady Bunch

As I watched the presentations to the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, I was constantly aware how critically, and

immediately, the Justices' decision will impact gun laws that protect you and your family today, and in the future . . .

. . . from the Brady background check law and the federal machine gun ban to strong state gun laws in California,

New York, Illinois, and many others. Please help us defend these laws by making as generous a contribution as you

can today to the Brady Gun Law Defense Fund.

As the Court deliberates over the next few months, your support is critical. We need to be prepared for the outcome,

whatever that might be. This is no time to play wait-and-see.

A lot of politicians, and many citizens, think the Second Amendment limits our ability to enact common sense gun

restrictions. This position got a lot of attention in Tuesday's arguments.

However, it was clear to me from both questions and answers at the Supreme Court hearing that there is broad support

from all sides for responsible regulation concerning guns. We need to stress this position to the American public before

and after the decision is made in late June.

We are hopeful that the Justices' ruling will uphold the right of people in communities like the District of Columbia to

enact sensible gun laws they feel are needed to protect themselves and their families.

Even if the District's ordinance is struck down, and regardless of how the Justices rule on the individual's "right" to

bear arms, their questioning clearly acknowledged the importance of and the need for reasonable regulations on guns.

One thing is certain — we have the support of many Americans like you on our side. In a recent Washington Post poll,

a solid majority of Americans indicated they would support a law for their communities similar to the one in question

in the Supreme Court case.

While I was in the courtroom, Brady staff and activists were at the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court carrying signs and

speaking to the media. They were joined and cheered on by passers-by — school children, government workers, and tourists.

We will not wait for the Justices' ruling in this case. We are, and will continue to be, on the offensive.

Our voices — your voices — are making a difference!

Now is the time to contribute to the Brady Center as we get ready during the next few months for all the

vital next steps that will follow the Court's historic decision.

Please give generously today.

Sincerely,

Paul Helmke, President

Brady Center and Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

P.S. Click here to see my remarks at the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court following the oral argument. But first, please make a generous tax-deductible contribution to the Brady Center

Edited March 20, 2008 by hitman

[bgary]

it looks like they are preparing for defeat or at least trying to feather their nest before they go out of buisness

It doesn't necessarily mean they think they're going to be defeated.

They are, at their essence, "fearmongers", and so... raising the spectre of possible defeat may be [cynically] viewed as just "another opportune time to scare people into opening their wallets."

It's a no-lose scenario: if they get defeated, they say "I told you so; if you send more money we'll try again". If they don't, they send the message that "money made the difference, so keep those donations coming".

$.02

B

[JFlowers]

Should the Court rule that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, can we use the same laws that allow one to sue the KKK for conspiracy to violate the rights of blacks against the Brady Bunch???????

Oh well, just a thought.

[hitman]

Good point bqary

[Carlos]

Carlos,

So, your take is a win, without scrutiny or definition...

That would seem to be a tweak, then? Basically, DC went too far. Not saying what "too far" is...just that they went there.

?

Good question Flex! Put another way, (if I understand you) my prediction about the decision seems to be:

"You have crossed the line, D.C., and therefore, your handgun ban is unconstitutional. BUT, we will not tell you where we draw the line." How is that possible you ask?

By "draw the line" - I am referring to what "standard" or "standard of review" applies to gunlaws restricting an individual's 2nd Amendment rights. Our law is largely about "standards." So again, how can I believe the Court will not tell us what standard to apply?

Here is the Q. (from page 5) that the Court voted on to ask in this case:

"Whether the following [3] provisions [of the] D.C. Code . . . violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”

Notice that the question does not mention anything about standards. It only asks: "violate the 2nd Amendment rights of individuals ?" Put that way, the question seems to call only for a yes/no answer. No need to answer the question of what standard applies (ie - where is the line drawn?), because it was not asked.

The Supreme Court has a tendency to make their decisions (rulings) as narrow as possible. We know that their written decision has to say more than just "yes/no" - but I believe they will keep it as narrow as possible beyond that. They make narrow rulings because their philosophies span a wide spectrum and a narrow answer is the only answer that a majority of them would ever agree on.

In addition, the cases they agree to hear are supposed to be the toughest ones in law - meaning BOTH sides have good facts and arguments supporting their respective positions (I am not saying I agree with any part of D.C.'s position here - far from it). But if both sides have reasonable positions (i.e. "there is a grey area where reasonable minds can differ"), then it makes sense that the Court's answer would be as narrow as possible because in some small sense, both sides have some merit. A wide, extreme, or one-sided opinion would simply ignore the facts or ideas supporting the other side's argument. Better to leave the issue of "standard" open and see what D.C. comes up with next. The Court does not want to make D.C.'s laws for them; they only want to make sure D.C.'s laws do not conflict with the Constitution.

Another reason (I believe) the decision will be narrow and NOT state what standard applies is: the Second Amenedment right of individuals seems to be viewed as a "newly recognized" right (its existed all along; they are just now recognizing it). Since this right is new, there are few past court cases (no "body of law") for the Supreme Court to point to in support of what standard they should apply.

The last case to address this issue was Miller in 1939, and Kennedy called it: "deficient" (he is right; Miller is deficient). What the Court tends to do when it recognizes a right for the first time is: make a narrow ruling and let future litigation produce the facts that the Supreme Court needs to answer questions like: "what standard should apply?"

In any event, what good would a win in Heller be without a standard of review?

I am getting ahead of myself here, but at a minimum, I believe that Chicago and Morton Grove, Il, would have a very tough time defending their complete bans on handgun ownership, since their bans are essentially identical to D.C.'s handgun ban (and as the Justices pointed out "what is reasonable about a total ban on handguns?").

Regards,

Douglas

[Flexmoney]

Note: Let's stick to talk that is directly related to the the case, folks. We are approaching 300 posts, any drift that is not germane to the case makes this thread even harder to follow and keep current on.

[driver8M3]

somewhere in one of the close to 300 posts in this thread it was noted the justice thomas rarely asks questions during the hearings. saturday's WSJ had a brief article about him, and ended with this paragraph:

And why doesn't he ask questions at oral argument, a question oft-posed by critics insinuating that he is intellectually lazy or worse? Mr. Thomas chuckles wryly and observes that oral advocacy was much more important in the Court's early days. Today, cases are thoroughly briefed by the time they reach the Supreme Court, and there is just too little time to have a meaningful conversation with the lawyers. "This is my 17th term and I haven't found it necessary to ask a bunch of questions. I would be doing it to satisfy other people, not to do my job. Most of the answers are in the briefs. This isn't Perry Mason.

[JFlowers]

One thing in all this concerns me...

If the Right To Keep and Bear Arms is a guarenteed individual right, as opposed to a priviledge, then the government does not have the right to rescind that right from a felon once his debt has been paid. Just like he does not lose his right to free speech, assembly (1), quartering (3), search and seizure (4), due process (5), trial by jury (6 and 7), etc, etc, etc. Now, its not like felons have a problem getting firearms if they want them, or that a large portion of the nonviolent "felonies" today are legal fictions or misdemeaners ramped up to allow heavier sentences.

But I see a reasonable case for a felon charged with possesion of a firearms after the SCOTUS decision is published to fight the charges or if he is denied the ability to purchase.

On the decision itself, my opinion is that its going to be as narrow as possible and let all the other issues get fought through the court system, like the 1st amendment has been done for the last 75 years.

[warpspeed]

On the decision itself, my opinion is that its going to be as narrow as possible and let all the other issues get fought through the court system, like the 1st amendment has been done for the last 75 years.

I agree. And what will happen is once another case or 3 reach the SOCTUS, they will define it bit by allowing lower court rulings to stand or overturning them.

But I'm afraid it will take a long time.

[davidwiz]

If so, the immediate laws in danger under the future Heller decision would be the Chicago city and Morton Grove handgun bans.

I don't see how that can happen unless the 2nd is incorporated into the 14th Amendment. Washington DC isn't a state.

[davidwiz]

Again, I believe that following Robert's quote above, the Court will state that they do not need to state what level of scrutiny applies to gun control laws because the D.C. ban would not survive any level of Constitutional scrutiny.

In order for the Court to reach a decision about whether the DC gun ban is or isn't constitutional, they need to perform some sort of analysis, i.e. a standard of review. They can't just write a decision that only says, "it is unconstitutional" and not say anymore, but have to lay the road map on how that decision was reached.

[Carlos]

Again, I believe that following Robert's quote above, the Court will state that they do not need to state what level of scrutiny applies to gun control laws because the D.C. ban would not survive any level of Constitutional scrutiny.

In order for the Court to reach a decision about whether the DC gun ban is or isn't constitutional, they need to perform some sort of analysis, i.e. a standard of review. They can't just write a decision that only says, "it is unconstitutional" and not say anymore, but have to lay the road map on how that decision was reached.

Hi David! I respectfully disagree with you that the Court is required to state a standard of review. I'm not sure why we have to articulate some very intricate standard. I mean, these standards that apply in the First Amendment just kind of developed over the years as sort of baggage that the First Amendment picked up. But I don't know why when we are starting afresh, we would try to articulate a whole standard that would apply in every case?

Those words, however, are not my words. Those are the words of Chief Justice Roberts quoted directly from the oral arguments last Tuesday. Here is the full quote:

"CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, these various phrases under the different standards that are proposed, "compelling interest," "significant interest," "narrowly tailored," none of them appear in the Constitution; and I wonder why in this case we have to articulate an all-encompassing standard. Isn't it enough to determine the scope of the existing right that the amendment refers to, look at the various regulations that were available at the time, including you can't take the gun to the marketplace and all that, and determine how these -- how this restriction and the scope of this right looks in relation to those?

I'm not sure why we have to articulate some very intricate standard. I mean, these standards that apply in the First Amendment just kind of developed over the years as sort of baggage that the First Amendment picked up. But I don't know why when we are starting afresh, we would try to articulate a whole standard that would apply in every case?"

David - there are many commentators who have echoed your position & who agree with you that the Court "must" dictate a standard. In fact, Judge Silberman's decision in Parker (the case which became Heller) stated a standard and for "our" side it was a grand-slam home run: strict scrutiny. It was that aspect of Parker that promted the S.G. to get involved and argue the way he did (even if Cheney later opposed the S.G.).

So, will it be "No standard", or "standard?" If the latter, which one?

I think the confusion comes from the order of questions actually presented. The first question must be:

-Is the 2nd a collective right which belongs to the national gaurd and U.S. military?

Right now, today, the majority of Circuit courts (11 of 13) have opinions on the books which state as law: "No individual right to own a gun exists. The right belongs to the military and not the individual."

The Supreme Court, in finding an individual right, will overturn the law in 11 of 13 circuits - which is monumental. I think they will act as Roberts suggests in the quote above - and then call it a day. They can declare the D.C. code sections simply "unconstitutional" if they also say that the code would not survive any level of review. They need not reach the question of what level of review will apply in the future.

But, that is only my prediction and as has been pointed out before, no one will know who is correct until the Court issues its decision in June or July.

Regards,

Douglas

Edited March 25, 2008 by Carlos

[Carlos]

Newfound respect for Alan Gura (attorney for respondent Heller) - I found part of an interview Alan gave AFTER the oral arguments where he can now tell us more about the strategy of the case at oral argument. The youtube.com link can be found HERE (David - I think paragraph 4 speaks to the Heller strategy as to "standard of review." d.)

Alan Gura [attorney, Gura & Possessky, PLLC, lead counsel for plaintiffs in Parker v. District of Columbia, on appeal as District of Columbia v. Heller]:

"As advocates, our role is to respond to the actual questions posed by the Justices, in a direct and honest manner, which would hopefully make the Court more comfortable with our respective positions. That's it.

Members of the Court questioned Petitioners’ version of history, and the Solicitor General’s unsatisfying standard of review approach. Predictably, in querying me, the Justices wanted to know if I endorse a practical, common-sense Second Amendment. The Court’s view of what is practical probably differs from that of extremists on either side of the gun debate. Petitioners, and to some extent, the Solicitor General, sanctioned the prohibitionist extreme: that a total ban on all handguns and all functional firearms in the home is (petitioners) or may be (Solicitor General Clement) constitutional. I was not about to mirror that by advocating for the pro-gun extreme: an absolute right not subject to regulation, and which encompasses machine guns.

My decision to avoid extended discussion of social science data was conscious, and reflected the consensus of our team and everyone with whom we raised the issue. The social science overwhelmingly cuts in our favor, but it is the sort of argument best left for amici. Criminological data might make the Court more comfortable in reaching its decision, but ultimately the questions in Heller are legal, not scientific. A Justice is more likely to accept a legal position despite misgivings about its implications, than a social science position he or she finds debatable, at best. I was prepared to answer specific questions about various studies, but none came up. I was unwilling to actually raise the social science issue and turn the case into something it isn’t.

Extended scientific discussion would have also invited more discussion of standards of review. But a core strategic decision made at the outset of the litigation, which may yet be vindicated, was to keep the case as narrow as possible by observing that these laws fail any conceivable standard of review. The Court does not decide cases not before it. To decide this case, it is enough to declare an operative individual right. Some Justices appeared open to that viewpoint, underscoring again our disappointment with the Solicitor General’s position.

The one Second Amendment test we do have – for delineating protected from unprotected arms – is found in Miller. Nobody seems to like Miller much, but we do win our case if it is faithfully applied, as it was by the D.C. Circuit. So it would have made no sense for me to seek Miller's destruction and thereby start from an argument against precedent. Justice Kennedy could, and did, signal Miller’s deficiency, and that allowed me to discuss the issue. But it wasn’t my task to undo Miller, however desirable that may be. Along the same lines, several Justices appeared to have almost no use for the Second Amendment’s preamble, but as an advocate, I could not over-argue the matter.

Finally, among the most heartening moments, for me, were Dellinger’s pejorative uses of the word “libertarian” to describe our position. Everyone arguing for an individual right – any individual right – may be said to be taking a libertarian position. That perspective comes from trusting people. We trust the people of Washington, D.C., like those in half of all American households, would responsibly use firearms in lawful fashion. We believe that trust is reflected in the Second Amendment. We hope the Court will agree."

Regards,

Douglas

Edited March 25, 2008 by Carlos

[Carlos]

Interview with Robert Levy (attorney for Dick Heller) predicting optimism after oral argument: (note - he touches on the topic of incorporation and mentions they chose D.C. to avoid the issue. Interesting to see what the Court will do with it, though I believe it will be a non-issue going forward).

LINK TO TOWNHALL.COM interview

"Second Amendment Optimism: An Interview

By Bill Steigerwald

Monday, March 24, 2008

Fans of gun rights and scholarly defenders of the U.S. Constitution alike were left pleased and optimistic by what they heard U.S. Supreme Court justices say March 18 during oral arguments for a case challenging Washington, D.C.'s, sweeping, super-strict gun law. The plaintiff in District of Columbia v. Heller argues that D.C.'s ban -- which essentially makes it illegal for private citizens to own handguns at all or possess rifles that are assembled or unlocked and ready to use -- violates the Second Amendment.

Robert Levy of the Cato Institute agrees. The senior fellow in constitutional studies at the libertarian think tank spent a lot of his own money and five years of legal plotting to make sure Heller -- the first Second Amendment case heard by the Supreme Court since 1939 -- made it to the high court. I talked to Levy March 20 by telephone from his home in Naples, Fla.:

Q: What's your quick description of what District of Columbia v. Heller is all about?

A: It's all about self-defense. It's about six plaintiffs originally -- and now down to one -- who feel at risk in the dangerous community of Washington, D.C., and they want to be able to defend themselves in their own homes. Washington, D.C., law says that they can't do that. There's an outright ban on all functional firearms, in all homes, at all times, for all people. And these folks have both a need to defend themselves and a constitutional right to defend themselves.

Q: You played a very active role in getting this issue -- and this specific case -- to the Supreme Court. Why and how?

A: Well, for about a decade I’ve been the senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute. I’ve been interested in a large number of constitutional issues, one of which -- maybe not even the issue I’ve spent the most time on -- is the Second Amendment.

A number of events seemed to come together that suggested that this would be a good time. When I say "this" time, I mean February of 2003. That’s when the case was first filed -- more than five years ago. Those events included an outpouring of scholarship -- from liberals; we’ve always had scholarship from the right -- saying there was an individual right secured by the Second Amendment. There was a court decision down in Texas -- called United States v. Emerson -- that said the same thing. The Justice Department prepared an exhaustive legal memorandum that put the federal government on record in support of an individual right. The City of Washington had the most draconian gun ban in the country and also the most violent statistics in the country -- and the city of Washington is a federal enclave, so we didn’t have to come to grips with a fairly knotty constitutional question, and that is whether the Second Amendment even applies to the states since Washington is not a state. So all of that put together suggested -- plus the complexion of the Supreme Court; it was relatively conservative and might be considered to be favorable to a Second Amendment case; there hadn’t been a Second Amendment case in about 70 years -- that you have the circumstances for a legal challenge.

Q: And that 70-year distance since the last major Second Amendment case is what makes this case so historic and important, obviously?

A: Yes, I think that’s right. Of course, bear in mind that there were 140 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified during which there didn’t seem to be much controversy. So to suggest that there has been this debate going on for 70 years, yes, it’s true. But that’s because the Supreme Court in 1939 sort of created the debate by issuing an opinion that nobody has understood for seven decades.

Q: Before that there was no question the Second Amendment gave the individual person a right to own guns?

A: Not much question about it. There was no resolution of whether or not the Second Amendment applied to the states, so some of the states could have regulations. But the federal government was pretty much constrained from having any serious restrictions on gun ownership because of the Second Amendment.

The first major gun law that was issued was in the 1934 National Firearms Act. That’s what was challenged in the 1939 case, and it was the National Firearms Act which required that certain weapons be registered and required that a tax be paid on them. It was determined that the National Firearms Act was OK; it was constitutional.

Frankly, we wouldn’t dispute that now. We’re talking about a different sort of thing. We’re talking about a ban on all functional firearms, not a tax and not a registration requirement. We’re talking about a restriction on the right to defend yourself.

Q: Based on the oral arguments on Tuesday, a lot of gun-rights advocates are optimistic. Should they be?

A: It’s tough to tell. I’ve been involved in oral arguments where it looks like the justices are leaning in one direction and you wait and you get the opinion and, lo and behold, it goes exactly the opposite way. So I’m very reluctant to get involved in the prediction business. But I do think this: Everybody was concerned about Justice (Anthony) Kennedy because he’s sort of the swing vote on the court. Over and above his questions, Justice Kennedy actually made some statements from the bench that suggested that he believed it was an individual right. So I’m pretty comfortable that we’re going to prevail on that question -- whether or not there’s an individual right or whether it’s limited to militia service. I think we’re going to win that question. The other question, though -- since you can win that battle and lose the war -- is what kinds of regulations are going to be permitted. That’s a much closer call and frankly I’d just as soon wait for the opinion before I venture a guess.

Q: What will the decision turn on -- support for the original intent of the Second Amendment that reinforces what it said all along?

A: The first of the two questions that I mentioned -- namely, whether there is an individual or a collective right, an individual right versus a militia-based right -- will hinge on the items that you mentioned: The text of the Constitution, the intent of the Framers, the history of what was going on at the time and shortly thereafter, the overall structure of the Constitution and how this amendment relates to all the other provisions of the Constitution, and the general tenor of the Constitution; that is, what was it intended to do with respect to individual rights. All that will be taken into account in this first question.

In the second question -- what kinds of regulations will be permitted? -- we may get into some policy questions. Do gun regulations work? What kinds of gun regulations go further than necessary to accomplish the ends that are sought to be accomplished? I think this is going to depend on how rigorously the court intends to review what is passed by legislatures.

Legislatures generally get their way in this country. That’s what democracy is all about. But it’s not an absolute. They can’t, for example, pass a law that says you’re not allowed to practice Catholicism, or you’re not allowed to criticize the governor, or you can’t speak freely. Those kinds of regulations are not permitted.

Our view is that a regulation that says you can’t have any functional firearm in your home is like a regulation that says you can’t speak freely -- it violates an expressed provision in the Bill of Rights. If the courts are fairly rigorous in their review of these regulations, then certainly the D.C. gun ban and probably some other regulations will be invalidated. If the court is just a rubber stamp and generally gives the legislature carte blanche to do whatever it wants, now that’s quite a different story.

Q: If things go the way you’d like them to go, how wide of an impact will the decision have on gun laws around the United States?

A: First, we would consider it a victory to get a two-part decision. The first part is that this is an individual right not limited to militia service and the second part is that the D.C. gun ban is unconstitutional. If we get that two-part decision, then we will have considered it a tremendous victory. Now the court could go further. It could establish what standard of review it would impose on new gun regulations that come before it. This was the issue that I was just talking about: Is it going to be rigorous scrutiny where it requires the government to really justify its regulations or is it going to be a rubber stamp?

Q: So it will scare off a lot of bad legislation?

A: That’s quite possible. We would hope that the court would strictly scrutinize any regulations, because the right to keep and bear arms is part of the Bill of Rights. It’s a fundamental right. It occasionally has life or death significance to be able to defend yourself. And those kinds of rights ought to be rigorously scrutinized when government intends to compromise or truncate the right, just as we do in the case of speech and religion.

But the court may not go that far. It may simply go only so far as to say the D.C. gun ban just can’t pass muster and it is unconstitutional.

As far as implications outside D.C., two things are going to have to happen. One of which is to flesh out this skeleton about which regulations can be permitted and which can not. The second is a question of whether or not the Second Amendment even applies to states. That has not been resolved by the courts. It has been resolved with respect to almost all of the rest of the Bill of Rights. The courts have decided that almost all of the Bill of Rights do apply. If the states violate your right to free speech, religion, press, etc., you can seek federal redress under the U.S. Constitution. But that issue hasn’t been resolved with respect to the Second Amendment and it probably will not be resolved in this case, because D.C. is not a state.

Q: What’s the next big Second Amendment issue you’d like to see the Supreme Court settle in a definitive way?

A: Assuming that we win this case, I think the next big one we’d like to see is what goes under the name of “the incorporation issue.” That is, whether the Second Amendment is “incorporated,” via the 14th Amendment, to apply to the states. You’re likely to see that kind of litigation in a place like Chicago or New York or somewhere where there is really some pretty onerous gun regulations, but it is in a state or local context, not a federal enclave like the District of Colombia.

[Carlos]

Not much new to report on. This is from today's (5/15) Washington Post:

"Solicitor General Clement Says He Will Step Down

By Robert Barnes

Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, May 15, 2008; A07

Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, a key advocate in court for the administration's counterterrorism policies, will resign from the Justice Department in early June, the department announced yesterday.

Clement, 41, has argued 49 cases before the Supreme Court on behalf of the government, including some of the most controversial since he was appointed in 2005. He has also represented the government in federal appeals court cases.

A former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia, Clement has been a member of the Federalist Society and is well-known as a legal conservative, but he has also been praised by liberal justices on the Supreme Court. Clements's tenure has been marked by a willingness to find a position that attracts majority support, even if it means less emphasis on ideological stands.

Gun activists were upset with him earlier this year because of a brief he filed in the Second Amendment challenge of the District's handgun ban. Clement agreed with their position that the amendment affords an individual right to gun ownership, but said the lower-court ruling that struck the D.C. law was so broadly rendered that it endangered all federal gun control legislation. He urged the court to return the case for further review; it has not yet ruled.

Clement will leave office on June 2. He has not announced his plans.

"I will miss not only Paul's superb advocacy on behalf of the United States, but also his wise counsel and keen legal analysis," Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey said in a statement announcing Clements's departure.""

- nothing to comment on here, other than IMHO, these sorts of resignations are common in the months prior to the end of an administration. And to be clear (and stear clear of any political comment) I am simply saying there WILL be a new administration after the inaguration - whether its the McCain administration or someone else. Each new administration usually prefers to have their own pick for solicitor general, and unlike the AUSA scandal, the political appointments at this level are in no way suspect.

RE when Heller is due out: the Court usually issues decisions on Monday. It could come out early, and be issued this month. Most observers predict it will be out in June. Keep your eye on June 2, 9, 16, 23 or 30. It would not be impossible for the decision to come out in early July though. Sorry if that's not precise - and I know, its a long tome to keep your fingers crossed.

[outerlimits]

well, June 9 is monday...maybe, just maybe...

[shred]

Word is the SC is going to release opinions on Monday and Thurs this week. No input as to which opinions.

[Carlos]

Word is the SC is going to release opinions on Monday and Thurs this week. No input as to which opinions.

Thanks for the heads up Shred! From Scotusblog today (Sunday June 8):

"On Monday, the Court is expected to release at least one opinion, as well as orders from the Justices’ private conference last Thursday. In addition, the Court is expected to release the argument calendar for the October sitting next term.

On Thursday, the Court is expected to at least one opinion, after which they are scheduled to hold a private conference, orders from which are expected to be issued the following Monday, June 16."

Odd timing. Wonder if this week is THE week?

[JThompson]

Word is the SC is going to release opinions on Monday and Thurs this week. No input as to which opinions.

Thanks for the heads up Shred! From Scotusblog today (Sunday June 8):

"On Monday, the Court is expected to release at least one opinion, as well as orders from the Justices’ private conference last Thursday. In addition, the Court is expected to release the argument calendar for the October sitting next term.

On Thursday, the Court is expected to at least one opinion, after which they are scheduled to hold a private conference, orders from which are expected to be issued the following Monday, June 16."

Odd timing. Wonder if this week is THE week?

I'm scared, excited and pensive all at the same time. Hey, that's just about how I feel before the beep. They've kept us a "Stand-by" long enough.

Edited June 8, 2008 by JThompson

[Carlos]

Sad to say it looks like we are still on "stand-by" until at least Thursday:

From today's scotusblog:

"Today’s unanimous opinion by Justice Thomas in Quanta v. LG (06-937) is available here.

Today’s unanimous opinion by Justice Alito in Allison Engine v. United States (07-214) is available here.

Today’s 6-3 opinion by Chief Justice Roberts in Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture (07-474) is available here. Justice Stevens issued a dissenting opinion in which Justices Souter and Ginsburg joined.

Today’s unanimous opinion by Justice Thomas in Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity (07-210) is now available here."

Many have predicted that the Heller decision will be the last decision they issue before recess & their usual summer vacation. However it comes down, there will be some unhappy people around D.C. & I would not want to hang around listening to the bellyaching if I were one of the Justices. Still it would be a nice Thursday surprise if it comes out then.

[j2fast]

I'm going to be driving down to DC on Thursday; I'll have the mobile checking for updates as well as my Sirius tuned to the news hoping to hear something.

[Coach]

Let's just hope the Supreme Court has the courage to do what is right.

[EZ Bagger]

Let's just hope the Supreme Court has the courage to do what is right.

Ooops. Not really funny.