It IS very well written. I always like Paul Clement's writing style. This seems like a slam dunk as written but we sure could use Kavanaugh on the bench for this one. Perhaps we can get 4 votes if it appears Kavanaugh is a shoe in...
Plenty of time for the new Justice to get up to speed in his new job.
Nice set of arguments there.
Plenty of time for the new Justice to get up to speed in his new job.
Nice set of arguments there.
We will see if a new Justice will make any difference.
I don't think the arguments were as strong as they could be.
We will see if a new Justice will make any difference.
I don't think the arguments were as strong as they could be. They talked around the problem, but did not really address why the court really used rational basis and not intermediate scrutiny.
The court claimed that public safety is a substantial government interest, which is why the court claims it meets intermediate scrutiny. While they mention that there the relationship between the restriction and the government interest is based on a hypothesis, they fail to really argue why it is not really intermediate scrutiny. They mention how you may have to travel farther to reach a city range, but failed to elaborate that there is no real difference traveling to a range outside the city vs inside the city. If there is really a problem traveling with a gun why is traveling with a gun inside the city acceptable?
If you read the circuit court opinion, the plaintiffs apparently used a tennis racket analogy. The court promptly destroyed that argument. While I understand that it can be considered a blunt object, I am unfamiliar with how many tennis rackets are used to injure people. I am unsure why a car, which causes at least as many deaths a guns, was not chosen.
While I think that this could have been a good case, I am not so sure based on the arguments presented.
Yeah, Paul Clement writes terrible briefs. That's why he gets so few cases granted cert. I am sure he has no idea what the conservative justices are looking for. Maybe he should hire some former Kavanaugh and Scalia clerks. Are you free, you could submit your resume!
I never said it was terrible. Are you saying this brief was perfect and that he does not make any mistakes? There are definitely things that I think he could have addressed better in this brief.
How many 2A cases of his have been accepted? He is not listed as council in Heller, McDonald or Caetano. He was listed in Peruta, which was denied.
Have you looked at what the courts are doing?
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/10/l...r-courts-dont-follow-supreme-court-precedent/
It is not unusual that the SCOTUS doesn't take cases when there is some kind of split.
https://law.yale.edu/system/files/documents/pdf/Intellectual_Life/EvolutionofConflict.pdf
SCOTUS has not really accepted any 2A case for argument since McDonald. The lower courts have come to a much different conclusion compared to Heller/McDonald. SCOTUS has done nothing to correct these conclusions. Maybe the problem is that those arguing the problem don't really understand the real problem.
Your sig line should be... "I could have done/said/written/argued it better but didn't get off the couch and do anything about it."
...at least you are consistent.
How does this law even pass a rational basis test? I guess the solution is to head to a range in PA so FOPA provides an affirmative defense?
How does ANYTHING in Tammany Hall-run NYC pass a rational basis test? You need connections or bribes, or you're out of luck.
Paul Clement has more cases argued before the Supreme Court over the last 4 years than any other lawyer. He also has the most wins in close cases. I'd bet on Paul Clement over random internet guy every day that ends in y.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/09/empirical-scotus-supreme-court-all-stars-2013-2017/
You keep whining how the briefs are not "perfect" and there are "things that I think he could have addressed better in this brief." I don't see you putting you money where your mouth is and filing amicus briefs.
You keep making straw man arguments. Paul Clement is a very good lawyer, I have never claimed he is a bad one. He writes plenty of good cert petitions and has argued the most number cases in the past 5 years. How does any of this address this case and whether this particular case will be accepted? What 2A SCOTUS cases has he argued?
It is not my opinion that SCOTUS has not taken another 2A case despite lower court rulings that have eviscerated the 2A. It is a fact. Why have they passed on all of the other 2A cases to date including ones that Paul Clement has written?
Maybe I am getting it all wrong. After all the results speak for themselves. 0 argued 2A SCOTUS cases (since McDonald) vs tens of cert denied 2A SCOTUS cases. Apparently there is nothing wrong with the argument. The courts are obviously corrupt and the next case will overcome this corruption. We will continue to blame someone else for our losses.
When I loose, I look to see where I made mistakes and try and figure out better ways to make my argument better. I continue to run into people that simply want to defend the status quo and blame someone else for the losses. I am slowly trying to put together an argument, but I keep running into people that would rather dismiss this line of argument.
Clement was a significant player in both Heller and McDonald.I never said it was terrible. Are you saying this brief was perfect and that he does not make any mistakes? There are definitely things that I think he could have addressed better in this brief.
How many 2A cases of his have been accepted? He is not listed as council in Heller, McDonald or Caetano. He was listed in Peruta, which was denied.
Have you looked at what the courts are doing?
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/10/l...r-courts-dont-follow-supreme-court-precedent/
It is not unusual that the SCOTUS doesn't take cases when there is some kind of split.
https://law.yale.edu/system/files/documents/pdf/Intellectual_Life/EvolutionofConflict.pdf
SCOTUS has not really accepted any 2A case for argument since McDonald. The lower courts have come to a much different conclusion compared to Heller/McDonald. SCOTUS has done nothing to correct these conclusions. Maybe the problem is that those arguing the problem don't really understand the real problem.
Clement was a significant player in both Heller and McDonald.
Heller:
BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE
PAUL D. CLEMENT
Solicitor General
Counsel of Record
Mar 18 2008 Argued. For petitioners: Walter Dellinger, Washington, D.C. For United States as amicus curiae: Paul D. Clement, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Alan Gura, Alexandria, Va.
McDonald:
Mar 02 2010 Argued. For petitioners: Alan Gura, Alexandria, Va. For respondents National Rifle Association, In.c, et al. in support of petitioners: Paul D. Clement, Washington, D. C. For respondents: James A. Feldman, Special Assistant Corporation Counsel, Washington, D. C.