SCOTUS Takes on the Second Amendment
(As aspiring argument attendees camp out overnight...)
The Supreme Court gets to enjoy the media spotlight this week as it dives into the always contentious Second Amendment. An article in Sunday's Washington Post has a good breakdown of the issues at stake:
The nine justices, none of whom has ever ruled directly on the amendment's meaning, will consider a part of the Bill of Rights that has existed without a definitive interpretation for more than 200 years."This may be one of the only cases in our lifetime when the Supreme Court is going to be interpreting the meaning of an important provision of the Constitution unencumbered by precedent,'' said Randy E. Barnett, a constitutional scholar at the Georgetown University Law Center. "And that's why there's so much discussion on the original meaning of the Second Amendment.''
Facing the highest firearm murder rate among the States, the District of Columbia passed a law in 1976 virtually banning the possession of handguns. As a sidenote: The District also changed the name of its basketball team from the questionably violent "Bullets" to the "Wizards" in 1997.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the ban last year, and now SCOTUS has got to get up in it. In a Wall Street Journal column this month, Laurence Tribe revealed that he will do a little happy dance if the Court decides narrowly. Moderation...yawn...
Using a case about national legislative power over gun-toting in the capital city as a vehicle for deciding how far Congress or the state of California can go in regulating guns in Los Angeles would be a silly stretch.Chief Justice John Roberts, ever since his days as a judge on the court of appeals, has virtually defined judicial modesty by opining that if it is not necessary for the court to decide an issue, then it is necessary for the court not to decide that issue. For this reason, and for the further reason that the scholarship on the reach of the Second Amendment and its implementation is still in its infancy, the court should take the smallest feasible step in resolving the case before it.
Issuing a narrow decision would disappoint partisans on both sides and leave many questions unresolved. But to do anything else would ill-suit a court that flies the flag of judicial restraint.
Supreme Court vs. the Second Amendment may be as exciting as a Duke vs. UNC basketball game. People are camping out overnight to watch the argument tomorrow! A tipster on location reports that there are already 14 people in line, the first one having arrived at 5:30 a.m.
Of course, no decision's expected until the end of the term in June. While we wait, we'll keep challenging people in bars to name all the Supreme Court Justices. And watch Charlton Heston movies.
D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court [The Washington Post]
Sanity and the Second Amendment [Laurence Tribe in the Wall Street Journal]
Laurence Tribe to High Court: Restrain Yourself [Wall Street Journal Law Blog]
Comments
Who actually argued the case?
Posted by: Anon | March 17, 2008 12:37 PM
"now SCOTUS has got to get up in it"
I just threw up a little in my mouth. Stop channeling SEN.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 17, 2008 12:41 PM
Nobody argued it yet - the argument is tomorrow, Tuesday the 18th.
Nice job, Kashmir, on covering the traditional Article III Groupie subject of the S. Ct. Loved the "get up in it" reference.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 17, 2008 12:44 PM
Randy Barnett is a numchuck
Posted by: Anonymous | March 17, 2008 12:51 PM
"Get up in it" - well placed, timely and it "fit, unlike SEN.
I would like a breakdown on how many people cannot name the Nine, and which Justice is missed most.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 17, 2008 12:51 PM
In the words of Skynard, "gimme back my bullets."
Posted by: Anonymous | March 17, 2008 01:03 PM
Skynyrd
Posted by: Anonymous | March 17, 2008 01:19 PM
roberts, alito, breyer, bader-ginsburg, thomas, souter, kennedy, scalia, stevens.
boo-ya!
Posted by: Anonymous | March 17, 2008 01:21 PM
I would bet either Breyer or Souter is missed the most. Their identities are certainly the two most-often confused by SCOTUS litigants.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 17, 2008 01:26 PM
How come it's 1:30 and there is 1 post by Lat (and the morning docket) and 2 posts by a guest blogger. I hoped that adding guest bloggers would INCREASE the number of posts each day, but apparently not.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 17, 2008 01:27 PM
Randy Barnett is a putz. Don't people know this? The man can't speak for more than 3 minutes without turning to his own (disastrous) Supreme Court argument, his pompous books or an upcoming speaking engagement.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 17, 2008 01:31 PM
Roberts, Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Alito. The order is important
Posted by: Anonymous | March 17, 2008 01:57 PM
Hey guys, I am a pirate 2L UPENN Law, Dickinson, and need some advice. Do you think I'm better situtated to do complex-cross-border transactional work or high-stakes, bet-the-company litigation?
Any advice would be really appreciated.
Posted by: I need your tipppps . . . | March 17, 2008 02:08 PM
With a degree from a top school like Penn. State, you can basically write your own ticket. Pick the one you feel more comfortable with, because you'll be able to do either.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 17, 2008 02:15 PM
Why take any chances 2:09. Get an MBA from the Warden School to go with your PennState-Philly law degree and you can own the company.
Posted by: anon | March 17, 2008 02:32 PM
2:08 - it sounds like you should aim for simple, single-state transactional work or low stakes, bet-the-secretary's job litigation.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 17, 2008 02:39 PM
2:08, your first problem is that you are a pirate. Ninjas are far better suited for both kinds of work. That said, I would say a degree from a Top Ten School like Penn State Law should open a few doors in the V5. Just take whatever you can get and try not to ruffle too many of those pirate's parrot feathers.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 17, 2008 02:42 PM
See generally 10 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 413
Posted by: Anonymous | March 17, 2008 03:02 PM
3:02 - make sure to read the article in the voice of comicbook-store-guy from the Simpsons.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 17, 2008 03:07 PM
". . . Laurence Tribe revealed that he will do a little happy dance if the Court decides narrowly."
Tribe would have a better shot at influencing the outcome if he promised NOT to do any happy dances, little or otherwise, if the court ruled his way.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 17, 2008 04:10 PM
2:09 - go with the cross border complex stuff - the change of scenery will do you well after 3 years in State College...
Posted by: Legacy | March 17, 2008 04:41 PM
We at the Penn State Law School-Philly support a gun ban, considering our top 10 law school is in the middle of an urban war zone.
Philly to 392 (homicides in 2007, that is)!!
Posted by: Anonymous | March 17, 2008 04:41 PM
Have a highball, after nightfall, be jolly - CUZ YOU ARE ALL GAY
Posted by: Legacy | March 17, 2008 04:44 PM
Anonymous,
Philly PD is hostile to lawful citizen carry. Any wonder why criminals feel safe going to work? Stop relying on ineffective police protection, activate the militia(lawful people taking back their own neighborhoods) and try repealing the drug war and the gang punks won't have anything to fight over. Take a little Second Amendment and call back in the morning. I bet Philly (and DC) will be feeling better.
Posted by: Right of the People | March 19, 2008 02:04 AM
Regardless how the SCOTUS rules, beware the presidential candidate who voted to confiscate citizens guns in a "national emergency" - H. Clinton. McCain and Obama voted to protect private gunowners while she voted to allow law enforcement to take them away. It's a HUGE issue, people.
NRA Article
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=266&issue=55
Posted by: Kathy, TX Dem | March 20, 2008 12:13 AM
Regardless how the SCOTUS rules, beware the presidential candidate who voted to confiscate citizens guns in a "national emergency" - H. Clinton. McCain and Obama voted to protect private gunowners while she voted to allow law enforcement to take them away.
NRA Article
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=266&issue=55
Posted by: Kathy, TX Dem | March 20, 2008 12:15 AM