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
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


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
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
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
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« California ... | Main | Corruption in New Jersey »

Author of Parker decision a possible Atty General nominee?

Posted by David Hardy · 8 September 2007 08:46 PM

The Washington Post reports that possible nominees for Attorney General include former Solicitor General Theodore Olson, former deputy AG George J. Terwilliger III, and D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Laurence H. Silberman, who authored Parker v. DC.

It'd be a clear conflict for a judge to rule on a case he'd argued as an advocate, but I wonder if it would be a conflict for an AG to take a position on a case he'd decided as a judge?

· Parker v. DC

7 Comments | Leave a comment

Jim W | September 8, 2007 10:03 PM | Reply

It is only a conflict for the judge because judges are supposed to be impartial. Lawyers are supposed to be on one side, so I don't see why his former impartiality would be a problem.

Virginian | September 8, 2007 11:09 PM | Reply

Well, at least you'd get consistent application of the case law!

Flash Gordon | September 9, 2007 4:59 AM | Reply

I believe that under the ABA Model Rules of Judicial Conduct he could not participate in the case as AG because of his direct role as a Judge. Actually, since he would no longer be a Judge at that point I guess it would be under the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, assuming those are the rules that govern in Federal court. I can't cite the specific section without looking it up, and I'm too lazy to do that. But if you check I bet I'm right.

Jim W | September 9, 2007 9:23 AM | Reply

Exactly, he wouldn't be a judge anymore, so the Rules of Judicial Conduct don't apply.

jetfxr69 | September 9, 2007 10:16 AM | Reply

If he reads this blog/comments, I'd encourage (beg, exhort, cajole, etc) him NOT to take the job. He's far more valuable as a conservative federal judge, with a lifetime appointment, than as the AG for a lame-duck administration with eighteen months left in office.

Flash Gordon | September 9, 2007 2:49 PM | Reply

I looked it up. If the ABA Model Rules apply, rule 1.12(a) would prevent him from representing The District unless all parties to the proceedings give informed consent. This is the Rule of Professional Conduct, not the Rules of Judicial Conduct. But the U.S. Attorney General's office is not representing the District in the Parker case anyway, is it? It is the Attorney General's Office of the District of Columbia. Isn't that like a state AG and not the U.S. AG?

Marcus Poulin | September 10, 2007 12:42 AM | Reply

He is a Originalist but still believes
that even wrongly-ruled case law should
remain said case law.

Leave a comment