MP3: http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290/argument/07-290_20080318-argument.mp3

MP3 + Transcript: http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290/argument/

It certainly must be weird to sit in a court room and listen to the judges attack your opponent's position with vigor and then get up there yourself and get hammered just as hard. I certainly don't envy these lawyers.

3/19/2008 6:03:16 PM

I'm going to listen to this after dinner.

3/19/2008 6:11:17 PM

I listened to that live on CNN when it was going on. It was rather neat to get to hear that kind of thing in person.

As much as I lose faith in the US at times and the government at times, that somewhat renewed it

3/19/2008 6:34:46 PM

listening to it right now


this has definitely partially renewed my faith in our Supreme Court

Quote :

"CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: What is -- what is reasonable about a total ban on possession? MR. DELLINGER: What is reasonable about a total ban on possession is that it's a ban only an the possession of one kind of weapon, of handguns, that's been considered especially -- especially dangerous. The CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So if you have a law that prohibits the possession of books, it's all right if you allow the possession of newspapers? "

[Edited on March 19, 2008 at 6:57 PM. Reason : .]

3/19/2008 6:50:20 PM

Wow. A useful thread in the soap box. Thanks for this.

3/19/2008 7:07:26 PM

I have to say I do feel bad for the DC lawyer, he sounded very unprepared to argue. It almost seemed like he expected to just give his speech and go.

3/19/2008 7:40:57 PM

Until they repeal the decision where the government can take your house and give it to someone else to make money with, I will have NO faith in the SC.

3/19/2008 8:10:30 PM

I will have no faith in the SC until Scalia retires

3/19/2008 8:14:59 PM

retires?

3/19/2008 8:19:40 PM

Like O'Connor did?

It's not unheard of, just not required.

3/19/2008 8:29:35 PM

Do you know what would have happened to a thread with that title in chit chat?

3/19/2008 8:29:53 PM

^^its not likely either

3/19/2008 8:43:54 PM

Well duh.

Megalomaniacs tend not to give up authority willingly.

3/19/2008 8:45:32 PM

Ok, removed more likely by a massive heart attack, driven by coronary heart disease.

[Edited on March 19, 2008 at 8:56 PM. Reason : .]

3/19/2008 8:49:07 PM

Quote :

"Until they repeal the decision where the government can take your house and give it to someone else to make money with, I will have NO faith in the SC."

Shit, I forgot about that. Ok, my faith has been redestroyed.

3/19/2008 9:10:14 PM

i agree that there are much better odds of the latter happening

3/19/2008 9:10:27 PM

Quote :

"I will have no faith in the SC until Scalia retiresThomas says something"

3/19/2008 9:20:32 PM

Thanks a lot for those.

3/19/2008 10:56:54 PM

Discussion about this issue tomorrow on The Diane Rehm Show at 10 a.m. Set your liberal-bullshit filter to max and you should be fine.

http://wamu.org/programs/dr/

3/20/2008 11:22:34 AM

Quote :

"I will have no faith in the SC until when Scalia retires."

3/20/2008 12:05:51 PM

^ I concur.

3/20/2008 3:54:43 PM

Quote :

"JUSTICE SCALIA: I don't see how there's any, any, any contradiction between reading the second clause as a -- as a personal guarantee and reading the first one as assuring the existence of a militia, not necessarily a State-managed militia because the militia that resisted the British was not State- managed. But why isn't it perfectly plausible, indeed reasonable, to assume that since the framers knew that the way militias were destroyed by tyrants in the past was not by passing a law against militias, but by taking away the people's weapons -- that was the way militias were destroyed. The two clauses go together beautifully: Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. "

[/case]





[Edited on March 20, 2008 at 4:51 PM. Reason : p.s. The version with the audio+realtime transcript is really really cool. ]

3/20/2008 4:49:27 PM

Quote :

"Until they repeal the decision where the government can take your house and give it to someone else to make money with, I will have NO faith in the SC."

Indeed, it should be "Life Liberty and Property", the pursuit of happiness would follow just the same.

3/20/2008 10:43:07 PM