« ATF ignores appropriations report language | Main
DC fires its Heller/Parker attorney
Prompted by a comment, I found the story in the WashPo.
I don't know quite what to make of it. A guess: the DC Atty General, a friend of the Mayor, wants the argument for himself? That's quite a feather in the cap. A justice on the AZ Supreme Court once told me that Sandy Day O'Connor said Supreme Court argument were on average inferior to those she heard in the AZ Court of Appeals. Reason was that every AG wants to take the argument for himself, and they're politicians, not litigators. In the Court of Apps, she said, she heard underprepared attorneys; in the Supreme Court she heard underprepared politicians, and she'd put her money on the underprepared attorney.
Or perhaps just "a new broom sweeps clean." DC got a new Atty General, the outside counsel was hired by the old AG, so goodbye.
I'd bet Morrison is NOT happy. The brief must be filed Friday, which means it's now in final form and at the printer's (Sup. Ct. briefs have to be printed, as in printing press). So they waited until he got the brief written and then popped it on him. But then this is DC, where backstabbing is normal business.
Comments
Well only one side side showed up in Miller.
Posted by: vinnie at January 2, 2008 12:27 PM
This time our side shows up and theirs stays home;>)
Posted by: RKV at January 2, 2008 12:39 PM
I bet Morrison is as happy as can be. Would he really want to be the one up there trying to defend an indefensible position? This has got to be a face saving attempt by all involved on the DC side of the argument. If they get their heads handed to them come the Court's June opinion, Nickles will be able to blame Morrison for giving them such a poor brief to stand on. Morrison on the other hand will be able to say, "If you had only let me present my case, we would have won." Either way, all will try to distance themselves from any responsibility for a loss. And if they win? Well, who honestly thinks they have a chance of winning? This last step could be the closest thing to a white flag the legal community has seen in some time. Any thoughts?
Posted by: robert12 at January 2, 2008 01:11 PM