« NICS and identity theft | Main | Roundup on candidate speeches at NRA conference »
SCOTUSBlog on Parker & conserv. vs. liberal splits
ScotusBlog has an interesting insight for Court watchers. The media tends to portray the Court in simple liberal vs. conservative terms, and portrayed the last Term as a conservative "shift." But actually the Court doesn't make decisions as does a legislature: it decides what cases come before it. A typical Term will issue about 80 published decisions. Most of those will be on arcane points of little general interest -- antitrust, details of pension plans, habeas corpus procedure, etc. Only about five will have much in the way of general interest or political overtones. It was pure coincidence, SCOTUSBlog argues, that last Term's 4-5 such cases were ones in which the "conservative" side had the better case.
Next Term, it argues, the situation may be reversed. There are several appeals pending, or likely to be taken, where the "liberal" side has much the better argument. The blog notes that this may mean that in the months leading up to the election, the Court will seem to have "gone left," leaving conservatives able to make hay by arguing judicial appointments need to be moved right.
SCOTUSBlog calls Parker a likely win for DC. I'd strongly disagree, of course -- but remember the poster probably has little to no familiarity with the Second Amendment, and seems to basing that call on reading DC's petition -- which of course argues that the DC Circuit decision was an aberration, out of line with history ("sophisticated collective rights"), etc.. If you base your predictions on reading only the first brief, they're always going to be that the author of that brief wins in a slam-dunk.
UPDATE: As comments point out, the author of the blog entry is the attorney representing DC in the Supreme Court! So it's only natural that he predicts a win. Very few attorneys go into a case expecting to lose. And fewer still would care to put down in writing, posted to the Web, "I've billed my client a zillion hours on a case where I think we're going to lose."
4 Comments | Leave a comment
Not only is he head of Akin Gumps practice, but he happens to be THE attorney the District hired to argue the case and oversee the development of their pleadings.
Of course, hesimply states that DC are clients of his firm. That's a gross oversimplification.
His entire credibility, in as much as it relates to his statement on Parker, is biased since of course, he's been hired to defend the District (in that regard, he's also the guy who f'd up on the appeal of the rifle and shotgun provision)
Not only is he head of Akin Gump's practice and DC's Top Lawyer on this case, he's working pro-bono. I do find it interesting that a very expensive law firm took this case pro-bono for a city. I understand why they do pro-bono work for prison paupers but a city? That does not negate his unfamiliarity with the issue - which speaks volumes about the amateurishness of the case DC is mounting.
That said he seems to be a very fair minded commentator (last term he wrote some very good balanced summaries of cases his clients had lost).
His statement basically amounts to "we will win."
The poster is actually head of Akin Gump's Supreme Court practice...