« Civil War incident | Main | LA Times -- NRA's clout waning? »
Brady Campaign--more on Heller
Check out the Brady Campaign Blog. It's a generic discussion of their top dog, Paul Helmke's surrender in Heller.
It sounds a little bit embarassed.
That would be understandable. After all, earlier this year Helmke posted of the "the long-standing view of virtually every Federal court – that the Second Amendment has an obvious militia purpose, and is no barrier to the adoption of gun control laws by legislative bodies..." They've long argued that view. In fact their main webpage still has Helmke saying he's confident they will win. And of course they fundraised off Heller.
And now he's announced they are totally hosed. They're going to lose in the Court, and they've already lost in the minds of Americans, by a 75% vote.
I can't help but wonder -- what Justice is going to want to sign onto an opinion going his way, now? The Court has to be deeply concerned about its reputation. It's got no appropriations power, no police, no miltiary. It depends on respect in a way the other two branches do not. Who would want to sign on to an opinion taking a position, where its chief advocate just publicly confessed that it's a loser, not only in the courts, but in minds of 3/4 of Americans?
UPDATE: I think SCOTUSBlog's statpack reflects, for cases not yet decided, a "best guess" as to who writes the opinion, based on which side they think will win and who, on the likely majority, is about due to be assigned an opinion. The latest is the June 9 edition, and I looked up some June 12 opinions. Two out of three had authors other than the ones listed in the statpack. I think the real assignments are kept as quiet as the opinions, since often, as in this case, if you know the assignment you know the outcome.
· Parker v. DC ~ · antigun groups
17 Comments | Leave a comment
>>>Who would want to sign on to an opinion taking a position, where its chief advocate just publicly confessed that it's a loser, not only in the courts, but in minds of 3/4 of Americans?
Whatever the opinion is, I'd guess it was "..sign[ed] on to.." long before Helmke made his comments.
The clerks are probably sending it to the printers right now, having completed all the proof-reading.
I predict they'll wait until the last second to release this one. So it may or may not be at the printers yet. However, I will be intently watching SCOTUSblog (run by DC's co-council in Heller, Tom Goldstein of Akin-Gump) for the results. I'd suggest paying attention to the opinion release days (every Monday and Thursday of this month). RSS SCOTUSblog as they have live coverage of the releases. Dcguncase.com is Heller's side's website (run by Gura-Possessky).
It'll either be this coming Monday, or the next. Keep your eyes peeled guys and gals.
The justices of the Supreme Court may decide to do a little extra studying of the period historical sources on this particular subject just like those of the Fifth Circuit did in the Emerson case. The Emerson decision appeared over two years after the case was filed.
I predict that if there is any delay beyond June in the Heller decision it will be a good thing for our rights. The historical sources are clear that the Second Amendment was intended to protect private rights, and the more those sources are consulted the better off we all are.
It might come on a Thursday. I can't *imagine* that the Court would hold it over for an October release.
But, you never know.
>>>Who would want to sign on to an opinion taking a position, where its chief advocate just publicly confessed that it's a loser, not only in the courts, but in minds of 3/4 of Americans?
Justice Stevens, of course.
YOU WROTE: "It's got . . . no police, . . ."
REBUTTAL: They do have their own police: The U.S. Supreme Court Police.
I'm guessing that it will be released next monday and that some sympathetic clerk has leaked the results to the Bradys. There is NO WAY they would be making public concessions like this unless they knew for a fact that the outcome was negative. I'm guessing the decision is done and being polished by clerks. I'm guessing that it is going to be favorable to our side, though to what extent, I am not sure.
Here's one for the scholars (which I have never claimed to be): We all know that the Supremes have refused to recognize a individual constitutional right, and then later over-ruled the previous decision in order to recognize such right.
A recent example would be the right to engage in private male to male sodomy without fear of arrest by the state. Bowers v. Hardwick (5-4), which was over-ruled by Lawrence v. Texas (6-3).
However, has the Supreme Court ever reversed its previous recognition of an individually held constitutional right?
At any rate, here's hoping that if an individual RKBA is recognized by the Court, the damned thing isn't 5-4.
Concerning Paul Helmke's statments, I wonder if some little bird at SCOTUS didn't whisper in his ear about the decission prior to release.
????
>>> Concerning Paul Helmke's statments, I wonder if some little bird at SCOTUS didn't whisper in his ear about the decission prior to release.
I had the same thought, but does this really happen?
If I read the Court assignments correctly from SCOTUSblog's statpack (pg.8), Antonin Scalia has been assigned the majority opinion. That may say enough to Helmke for him to throw in the towel. As gossip goes, I'd also "heard" that many of the justices were terrified of having to write the opinion because the ramifications could be so severe to existing law. Did Scalia take it because he thought he could write it narrowly enough to maintain order? I guess we'll find out if he's a statist conservative or a libertarian one.
>>>If I read the Court assignments correctly from SCOTUSblog's statpack (pg.8), Antonin Scalia has been assigned the majority opinion.
I don't understand that. Scalia's initials are listed under the column labeled "count", whatever that means. Most of the decided cases have different intitials under the column labeled "author".
If its true that Scalia is writing the opinion, it could be a huge win for Heller...
>>>I think SCOTUSBlog's statpack reflects, for cases not yet decided, a "best guess" as to who writes the opinion, based on which side they think will win ....
That makes more sense. Does Vegas have a line? It might be a better indicator. :)
When it comes to the guessing game of how large the majority might be and who would be part of it in DC v Heller, I can't help but contrast this upcoming decision with the recent ruling granting full rights to illegal combatants.
How could a Justice possibly justify ruling against a clearly enumerated right of American cititzens after having voted to confirm constitutional rights to all illegal combatant prisoners in a time of war? The fact that Obama thinks the D.C. gun ban is constitutional while also praising the ruling about illegal combatants tells me all that I need to know about Obama's values when it comes to the Constitution and who Obama would select for Supreme Court Justices.
SCOTUS decisions are released from the bench then sent to the printer in what is called a slip decision later the same day. The print version is the governing decision in the event of discrepancies between the two. This means no one at the printers could prematurely release the decision. Could the decision be released on June 30th?
The decision probably will only ultimately affect complete bans but may also affect any licensing rules. As to the types of guns, Miller provided a two pronged test. First protected arms must have some relationship to militia use. That means virtually every common firearm in circulation today would be protected. Secondly, firearms must be of a type in common use. Therefore short barreled shotguns and fully automatic firearms would still be banned or strictly regulated.
As the Justices said, they don't have to lay down detailed rules: that is the job of the lower courts so the full nature of the individual right will take decades to play out.
Depending on the text of the decision and how it's interpreted, this little thing with the Brady folks may be just as good as a near unanimous decision in our favor.
I mean just them publicly announcing defeat like this is, well partial payback (in a karma sense) for '94 is what comes to mind at this moment. I always said that the AWB was the Brady's big "achievement" so to speak, and when it went away, so would their funding. Now any "gains" (sans possibly the Lautenberg Amendment and the few remaining Crime Bill provisions that didn't expire) they've made are all gone.
They're a paper tiger, even with cash infusions from outside groups. We had about a decade of what they wanted and no one wants it any more, voting and polls show it. In fact the opposite of their goals is happening. and most of it without the NRA's help, and I think the public realizes this.
In fact that scenario is a win-win, both the NRA and Brady Campaign become less relevant (because I still do not forgive the NRA for the '86 ban and the long list of betrayals under their belt).