Of Arms and the Law
Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home
Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography

ISOcover150x200sm.jpg

I've released my documentary film on the history of the right to arms, "In Search of the Second Amendment." It stars twelve professors of constitutional law, plus Steve Halbrook, David Kopel, Don Kates, and Clayton Cramer. You can order the DVD here. And here's the Wikipedia page on it. SUPREME COURT SPECIAL: additional orders only $10 each.


2nd Amendment Discussions
1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Survivalist Blog
The BitchGirls
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Visitors since April 1, 2005: Free Web Counter
Free Hit Counter

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 3.15
Site Design by Sekimori

« Brady Campaign vows suit against mfr protection bill | Main | More on S.397 »

More on Meirs

Posted by David Hardy · 21 October 2005 03:16 PM

Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Todd Zywicki has some insights. To sum it up:

The conservative side split reflects a certain split between electoral-oriented conservatives (the religious right, etc.) which is content with a Justice they figure will vote their way, and the non-electoral conservatives (Federalist Society, etc.) who see legal change as a long-term change in ideas, and thus favor judges who have won their spurs, intellectually speaking, in conservative legal thinking. For the former is -- if it works, you get the 5-4 you need, don't complain. Besides, someone with well-established conservative credentials is going to catch flak for them. For the latter is --a person who can change patterns of legal thinking (on the Court and elsewhere) is more valuable than one more vote, and one without an established legal philosphy is more apt to shift leftward later in their career.

Another insight: under a bipartisan agreement worked out, Judiciary Committee cannot refuse to report out the nomination. It goes to the Senate floor no matter what. On the other hand, a negative vote and recommendation against (or even a tie and no recommendation) will shrink odds of confirmation massively.

A third: with a nominee like Roberts, little things tended to be ignored. But with one lacking many of his attributes, little things come up. No one would have worried about typos or sloppy wording with Roberts, but they're already pointing out those in her documents. Once a theme gets established in the media (Pres. Ford's clumsiness, Dan Quayle's cluelessness, although he really was clueless), that's all you'll hear (because writing stories on that takes so little effort).

A fourth: people who have heard her speak are worried about the confirmation hearings. And given the situation, her hearings are going to be critical. Previous Justices faced a lot less partisanship. Roberts faced it, but had sufficient credentials to where it didn't all hang on the hearings.

· contemporary issues

Comments