Heller Open Thread
I’ll post on the oral argument tonight, but in the meantime I’d stay tuned to How Appealing for good links about which way the winds are blowing.
Here is video from Jan Crawford Greenburg on the case. Newsbusters is surprised at how fair Greenburg is to gun rights advocates, showing that Newsbusters isn’t really familiar with Greenburg’s stellar reputation for fairness.
Feel free to post thoughts on the oral argument below. I expect you guys to have accurate predictions of the Court’s vote by the time I get home.
JCG is so astoundingly fair and well-versed that I want to call her an anachronism in the MSM—problem is, I can’t remember a time anyone else was ever that fair, and good. I’d love to ask her some time about how she made it through the MSM hiring filter.
Comment by driver — 3/18/2008 @ 6:48 am
damnit I wanted to listen to this…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 3/18/2008 @ 6:55 am
SCotUSBlog had an interview with her in podcast form a while back. Was very interesting to hear.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 3/18/2008 @ 6:56 am
There will be streaming audio soon on more sites than you can shake a stick at. I recommend paying close attention to the Solicitor General. He’s talking to the “swing vote”.
Comment by nk — 3/18/2008 @ 7:11 am
nk, you have any links I could use right NOW to listen?
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 3/18/2008 @ 7:16 am
Only live blogging as of now.
Comment by nk — 3/18/2008 @ 7:30 am
Streaming audio promised here. There’s no live transmittal, apparently, and it takes a while for the tapes to be released and uploaded.
Comment by nk — 3/18/2008 @ 7:33 am
It seems Justice Kennedy is surpising me today…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 3/18/2008 @ 7:39 am
SCOTUSblog is live blogging and will shortly have a link to audio of oral argument.
Comment by Paul — 3/18/2008 @ 7:39 am
Yeah, I’m watching at SCotUSblog right now, and I’ll be closing my office (file room) door when the audio hits. Oral Arguments don’t seem to be very long for this.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 3/18/2008 @ 7:41 am
I would like Breyer’s idea if it meant I could own a M4…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 3/18/2008 @ 7:42 am
Arguments should be ending in a couple of minutes…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 3/18/2008 @ 7:44 am
Judging from the commentary at SCOTUSblog, it’s looking very good indeed for gun rights.
My prediction of the vote: 5-4.
Comment by Paul — 3/18/2008 @ 7:46 am
Paul #13:
LOL! Yes, but the question is “which way?” hmmm?
Comment by EW1(SG) — 3/18/2008 @ 7:49 am
5-4 to affirm.
Comment by Paul — 3/18/2008 @ 7:50 am
After reading the SCOTUSBLOG LiveBlog, it sounds like Kennedy will recognize an individual right to bear arms. That’s half the battle.
Comment by DRJ — 3/18/2008 @ 8:09 am
That’s Clement, too, DRJ. The meat is the test.
Comment by nk — 3/18/2008 @ 8:13 am
The test is important but not critical. The main question is whether this case will leave an individual right for future cases to construe. As long this case establishes that there really is a Second Amendment - i.e., that “people” includes ordinary citizens, “arms” include common firearms, and “shall not be infringed” doesn’t mean “is an NRA pipe dream,” the rest can be sorted out in future cases.
Comment by Xrlq — 3/18/2008 @ 8:32 am
CSPAN has opened a live feed now.
Comment by EHeavenlyGads — 3/18/2008 @ 8:36 am
Kennedy is totally surprising me here. Up until now he’s been a disappointment. I may well forgive all that if he comes down on the side of the individual here.
Comment by otcconan — 3/18/2008 @ 9:20 am
I’m expecting 5-4 or even 6-3 holding that there is an individual right.
I’m betting we will not see a single majority holding on the standard to apply, we’ll see a plurality opinion with a handful of concurrances that we’ll have to sort with a centrifuge to figure out a majority holding.
Comment by SPQR — 3/18/2008 @ 9:43 am
I suspect you’re right SPQR, especially concerning opinions.
JCG is gonna have a bear of a time with this one, I suspect.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 3/18/2008 @ 9:47 am
What surprises me about Kennedy, is his virtual frontal assault on Miller (which will leave him open for critical comment for his attack on stare decisis - wouldn’t it?). IMO, Miller was decided on less than appropriate info for a fair ruling on the matter - probably due to the death of Miller during this matter; and, in a perfect world, would have been overturned years ago but for the establishments lack of will to confront the issue.
…if I’ve mispelled the Latin, get over it…
Comment by Another Drew — 3/18/2008 @ 9:58 am
Countertop was there, and he’s more optimistic.
Comment by Xrlq — 3/18/2008 @ 10:11 am
He’s probably more optimistic than he should be.
Comment by SPQR — 3/18/2008 @ 10:17 am
You’re probably right, but one can only hope. If the good guys do end up winning any of the key issues 5-4, with Kennedy among the 5, I’ll have to re-think my longstanding hatred for Arlen Specter for his role in helping to bork Bork. For Bork, the Second Amendment was (is?) just another inconvenient ink blot.
Comment by Xrlq — 3/18/2008 @ 10:22 am
If we’re guessing on what the Court will do, here’s mine: 6-3 that the Second Amendment is an individual right, and 5-4 for the intermediate scrutiny test with 2-3 separate concurrences / dissents on that point.
Comment by DRJ — 3/18/2008 @ 11:26 am
Based on today’s oral argument, I’m willing to make this prediction: The vote will be 5-4 to affirm, period, with a single opinion speaking for the majority.
None of the five in the majority appeared interested in the standard of review. This is unsurprising. Once you’ve concluded — as the majority apparently has — that a fundamental constitutional right is at issue, the standard of review is axiomatic .
Comment by Paul S. — 3/18/2008 @ 11:53 am
My prediction is 6-3 to affirm, with no clear guidance as to what the appropriate standard should be. I figure that the DC law is so bad it would flunk any conceivable test, including rational basis review, so the question of which test ought to apply is not ripe for judgment.
Comment by Xrlq — 3/18/2008 @ 12:13 pm
I dunno. It seemed to past muster with the lefties in DC…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 3/18/2008 @ 12:21 pm
Affirm the Circuit Court, 6-4; possibly, 7-2; with several concurring opinions that will try to march everywhere.
But, at least we’ll get an affirmation of an individual right, without the dependence of the militia.
Now, if I could only get back the powder and shot that was confiscated from the family bunker in Concord?
Comment by Another Drew — 3/18/2008 @ 12:42 pm
How do we end up with a 6-4 decision? Is Justice Breyer going to vote both ways again, as he did in the Ten Commandments cases three years ago?
Comment by Xrlq — 3/18/2008 @ 1:20 pm
I think Breyer might well come down on the side of “individual right”… I don’t think he’ll be a hard sell, at least. He seemed to be trying to cross that bridge with his comment about allowing “military weapons” in citizen’s hands… I think he’ll easily come across on handguns as well.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 3/18/2008 @ 1:23 pm
Here’s the transcript via SCOTUSblog.
My prediction: The Second Amendment will be whatever the Supreme Court wants it to be.
Comment by nk — 3/18/2008 @ 1:24 pm
9-0 for that, NK.
Comment by DRJ — 3/18/2008 @ 1:25 pm
Sorry, meant 6-3 - big fingers, little keyboard.
Comment by Another Drew — 3/18/2008 @ 2:08 pm
Xrlq, I would not put it past him.
Comment by SPQR — 3/18/2008 @ 3:28 pm
Oh, by the way, I’m praying very hard ( for an atheist that is ) that whatever happens, we don’t get an opinion written by Kennedy. Sheesh.
Comment by SPQR — 3/18/2008 @ 3:29 pm
I was most disappointed in the “yeah it’s a right, but that don’t mean much” attitude from General Paul D. Clement. Bush had promised us much better than this. We were cheated. Badly cheated.
But it does look promising for at least a “Yeah, OK, it’s a right” ruling. That much would be a huge step in the right direction. Every circuit court but D.C. and the Fifth now say “It’s not a right; go directly to jail, do not try to use the Second Amendment.” All of that would go away….
The gun-grabbers took our rights one salami slice at a time. If we get a few chunks back, well, that’ll just be the start. On to the lawsuits!
Comment by Ranten N. Raven — 3/18/2008 @ 5:54 pm
I want to change my prediction now that I’ve read the full transcript. I think XRLQ is right in his comment 29 that the Court will recognize an individual right to bear arms but won’t address the level of scrutiny.
Comment by DRJ — 3/18/2008 @ 6:02 pm
CJ will write the opinion. Concurring by Ginsberg Kennedy and maybe Souter. Not a majority but a pluality just to piss off the NRA and the lefties…
Comment by Ringo NOva — 3/18/2008 @ 8:35 pm
Now that I’ve read the transcript myself, I stand by my earlier prediction regarding the test (or lack thereof), but now predict either a 5-4 or 6-3 victory on the individual rights view. No clue how Justice Ginsburg is going to rule on this one.
Comment by Xrlq — 3/18/2008 @ 8:48 pm
Hi how it’s going
Comment by jasonzrondeli — 6/14/2008 @ 6:43 pm