« Armed pizza deliverymen | Main | Online poll on allowing guns in Nat'l Parks »
Light blogging for a time
Been working on an amicus in Parker/Heller. As in 10-12 hour workdays.
Interesting event today. A small group of historians filed an amicus in support of DC.
And went 552 words over the word limit. So they have to resubmit tommorrow, the deadline. Since S. Ct. briefs have to be printed, I assume they were calling the printer today to see if they could bang out another set and have it to the Court by tommorrow.
UPDATE: the historians are Jack Rakove, Saul Cornell, David Konig, Wm Novak, Lois Schwoerer, Fred Anderson, Carol Berkin, Paul Finkelman, Don Higginbotham, Stanley Katz, Pauline Maier, Peter Onuf, Robert Shalhope, John Shy, and Alan Taylor.
Comments
Who are they?
Posted by: Greg Lyons at January 10, 2008 07:24 PM
Thanks SO MUCH for your time in the Heller case. I believe this will be the most important decision by the Supreme Court in 100+ years.
Posted by: Fiftycal at January 10, 2008 08:40 PM
If they filed on the side of DC, they can't be very good historians. Perhaps they are revisionist historians?
Posted by: straightarrow at January 10, 2008 09:30 PM
What surprises me is that the Supreme Court paid someone to read through the brief, counting up all the words. Maybe they scan it into electronic format?
Posted by: Sebastian at January 10, 2008 09:56 PM
"A small group of historians filed an amicus in support of DC."
Shouldn't that read: 'A small group of historians shot their credibility all to hell'?
Posted by: anon at January 10, 2008 10:18 PM
Where can I find the names of these alleged historians?
Posted by: Gregg at January 10, 2008 10:36 PM
Was this "group of 'historians'" affiliated with Michael Bellesiles?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bellesiles
Posted by: KBCraig at January 11, 2008 02:02 AM
What does it mean that the briefs have to be "printed"? I assume it's more than just a ban on handwritten submissions. Is it a certain quality level of the output or does it mean they have to be bound or what? Could an at home print job be slipped through if it looked right? I'm sure the output of a good laser printer would be equal in quality to anything a professional printer would produce. I did a quick Google of this but only found out the shocking fact that a minimum of 40 copies must be submitted.
Posted by: Starter at January 11, 2008 02:45 AM
They have a lot of clerks.
Posted by: Jim W at January 11, 2008 02:46 AM
Well to answer my own questions: According to rule 33.1 http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/33.html It appears that typewriters are out but laser printers will do. And briefs must be bound, preferably with a saddle stitch or perfect binding. According to Wikipedia, a saddle stitch is staples through the centers of folded pages like most American comic books, and a perfect binding is like National Geographic. It looks like you could do it if you were a real do-it-yourselfer, though of course it would probably be more practical to have it done.
Posted by: Starter at January 11, 2008 03:32 AM
Did you get a copy of their 522 word brief? If so, can you post it?
Posted by: Chris at January 11, 2008 10:35 AM
A group of historians filing for DC could be a real problem. If the Court is inclined to find for DC then this could give them the cover to do it. Someone is going to have to pick their brief apart.
Posted by: Jim at January 11, 2008 10:59 AM
The fact that these are historians worries me since the crux of the arguments for the gun ban are historical interpretations of the 2A. What are they possibly saying in support of the gun ban?
Posted by: Alan A. at January 11, 2008 11:00 AM
Sorry, previous post should read "since the crux of the arguments AGAINST the gun ban..."
Posted by: Alan A. at January 11, 2008 11:02 AM
"A group of historians filing for DC could be a real problem. If the Court is inclined to find for DC then this could give them the cover to do it. Someone is going to have to pick their brief apart."
Already in work. Send them some $$.
http://academicssecondamendment.blogspot.com/
Posted by: RKV at January 11, 2008 12:56 PM
Jack Rakove and Robert Shalhope are going to have some of their own earlier words to eat.
Posted by: 30yearprof at January 11, 2008 08:03 PM
Well, if Saul Cornell is on the list you can be sure that modern revisionism is flying high.
It will be interesting just how far they twist reality to get to their desired result.
Posted by: Bill at January 11, 2008 08:05 PM