« Let's help VPC | Main | Note on briefs »
Dave Kopel on amicus briefs
Dave Kopel has an excellent series of posts on the amicus briefs over at The Volokh Conspiracy. Good comments on each, too, in terms of how well-written it was and what effect it might have. He points out that the Solicitor General's brief was filed late at night and showed signs of hasty preparation. I think I found a couple of typos in, in a hasty skim. He suggests it might be the product of last minute changes, perhaps a change from strict scrutiny to intermediate review (as the Libertarian amicus points out, the SG cited cases which simply have no relevance to the case -- could be the result of a sudden change and people scrambling to find precedent).
By my count, which may be off, Heller is supported by 46 amici. Some don't do that much, but the great majority are powerful. And they're spread out, not piling in behind each other. The PA brief takes on details of PA history. Cato and Joyce Malcolm take on the English right. Academics covers ratification. Others deal with the great commentators, the 14th Amendment, four deal with standard of review,
In terms of authority, 30 state Attys General (vs, what, 5 for DC), a majority of both Houses of Congress (vs. 19 for DC), Two former US Atty General and a former Solicitor General (Robert Bork, a surprise, last I heard he was anti-individual right, but I also heard a rumor he was reconsidering in light of the literature).
9 Comments | Leave a comment
I'm having fun reading them. All the pro-Heller amicus briefs were due in on Feb. 11th, my birthday!
Bork? We got Bork?
Whoda thunk it?
Doing a little nit farming...
Four state Attys General for DC. One AG is from a territory--Peurto Rico
I took a con law course in law school that was co-taught by the dean of the school with Robt. Bork. He is a proponent of the "original understanding" method of constitutional interpretation.
At the end of the course, I went up and chatted briefly with Bork and mentioned that one of my big time con law issues was the Second Amendment and the rampant incorrect understanding of it. He said something to the effect that I should not be discouraged, because pro-gun people were making great headway and convincing a lot of people of the individuals rights view. This was a few years back now.
I never got the impression that he was not of the understanding that it protects an individual right.
All that remains is to grind the opposition into fine dust in oral arguments.
If the DOJ was going to argue for strict scrutiny and reversal, the deadline for their brief would not have been for another month. Right? Knowing lawyers, they would not have even have started it by petitioner's amicus deadline if their plan was to support respondent. And the whole thing does not seem unprofessional or thrown together; the part about the standard of review seems sparse only because there is nothing to support it. What logic or case law can they point to? There isn't any.
Guns aren't toys. They're for family protection, hunting dangerous or delicious animals, and keeping the King of England out of your face.
Courtesy of Krusty the Clown on the Simpsons.
Why didn't the Founding Fathers just use that wording! There'd be no debate over individual rights or strictness of review! (You could always replace King of England with Government, if you want to be a nit picker.)
Unless I missed an obvious link, for those coming late to this post, a link to all of the briefs discussed by Kopel is: http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1202366725.shtml
It's interesting to have a front row seat in this process, but it must be quite fascinating to be involved. So many amici on the Heller side!