NYSRPA v. Bruen Oral Argument

[vcdgrips]

Typically, opinions come out by late June. I say this because my Courthouse always has a CLE- "Continuing Legal Education Program" during which we get a US Supreme Court Opinion Round Up from Dean Chemerinsky. While reasonable minds can disagree with his personal/published POV, he does a 1.5 hr presentation with no notes other than an outline which sorts the cases by topic and name only.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Chemerinsky

https://www.law.berkeley.edu/our-fac...y/#tab_profile

[RoyGBiv]

This was the first time I'd listened live to an oral argument at SCOTUS. The thing most striking to me was how similar it was to college debates. I was expecting more formality, I suppose.

I would guess that oral arguments don't do a lot to sway votes. Seems like the votes were baked already, but, I suppose on some lesser polarizing issues, Justices can be swayed by oral arguments. Would be interested to hear comments on this from the professionals.

I thought Clement missed lots of opportunities to bring the conversation back from "prohibited places", but did an excellent job doing so in rebuttal. I suppose there's some strategy there that is more inside baseball? When Kagan (?) asked whether he would propose allowing licensed carry on the subway, I think any of us could have made a more pro 2A answer than what Clement gave, but, I assume his answer was more playing the game and not any lack of understanding that HELL YES was the only right answer, from a what-do-we-want standpoint.

I did enjoy Kavanaugh's (?) acknowledgment that there are already lots of guns on the subways.

5-4 or 6-3 for petitioner, depending on how far reaching they decide to go with scope. If this decisions is Heller or McDonald in scope, 5-4 pro 2A.

[Shoresy]

Transcript link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_ar...0-843_i4dk.pdf

[joshs]

I thought Clement missed lots of opportunities to bring the conversation back from "prohibited places", but did an excellent job doing so in rebuttal. I suppose there's some strategy there that is more inside baseball? When Kagan (?) asked whether he would propose allowing licensed carry on the subway, I think any of us could have made a more pro 2A answer than what Clement gave, but, I assume his answer was more playing the game and not any lack of understanding that HELL YES was the only right answer, from a what-do-we-want standpoint.

That was a trap. Kagan was trying to push him somewhere that might make the marginal justices uncomfortable. Not taking the bait is unfortunately part of arguing at the Court. I'm sure there will be lots of people that are mad that we conceded public schools, but the Court had already enumerated them in Heller, so we didn't have a choice. There is also quite a long history of location restrictions for arms in government buildings that have access control (courthouses, assemblies, etc.). We don't think that those are good policy (that's why we support legislation to eliminate those prohibited places), but we have to work within the reality of the original public meaning of the Second Amendment.

[RoyGBiv]

That was a trap. Kagan was trying to push him somewhere that might make the marginal justices uncomfortable. Not taking the bait is unfortunately part of arguing at the Court. I'm sure there will be lots of people that are mad that we conceded public schools, but the Court had already enumerated them in Heller, so we didn't have a choice. There is also quite a long history of location restrictions for arms in government buildings that have access control (courthouses, assemblies, etc.). We don't think that those are good policy (that's why we support legislation to eliminate those prohibited places), but we have to work within the reality of the original public meaning of the Second Amendment.

Thanks Josh... I appreciate the insight...

Would it have been considered inappropriate during initial arguments to answer the prohibited places questions more like he did during rebuttal? I acknowledge that the left leaning Justices worry about "blood in the streets", still, after so many years of that not happening.... but... what's the downside to saying something along the lines of.... "Justice Kagan, the blood-in-the-streets pearl-clutching arguments have been made in every of the 43 states that currently have a shall-issue regime and in none of those places has that concern been realized. In fact, in Texas, which annually publishes the numbers on such things, permit holders are far less likely than even the Police, to be charged with gun-related crimes. But, the issue at hand today is not about places, for which a variety of examples exist for good policy, the issue at hand today is whether NY's policy of requiring "I'll let you know if I'll allow it after you tell me what your reasons are" aka "I'll know it when I see it", meets Constitutional muster.

Or something.

Clearly he hit that on the rebuttal.

My inner voice just wanted more yelling and screaming. Counterproductive, I know. (JK!)

[Sanch]

That was a trap. Kagan was trying to push him somewhere that might make the marginal justices uncomfortable. Not taking the bait is unfortunately part of arguing at the Court. I'm sure there will be lots of people that are mad that we conceded public schools, but the Court had already enumerated them in Heller, so we didn't have a choice. There is also quite a long history of location restrictions for arms in government buildings that have access control (courthouses, assemblies, etc.). We don't think that those are good policy (that's why we support legislation to eliminate those prohibited places), but we have to work within the reality of the original public meaning of the Second Amendment.

Fortunately we all have the option to never set foot inside a public school building as long as:

1) You choose not to work for a public school system
2) You choose to home school or send children to private school
3) You choose a spouse correctly and don’t get divorced with joint custodial arrangements that may involve your need to enroll your child in public school

Public schools shouldn’t exist, period. So arguing for guns inside them only puts support into their existence.

[Kanye Wyoming]

Thanks Josh... I appreciate the insight...

Would it have been considered inappropriate during initial arguments to answer the prohibited places questions more like he did during rebuttal? I acknowledge that the left leaning Justices worry about "blood in the streets", still, after so many years of that not happening.... but... what's the downside to saying something along the lines of.... "Justice Kagan, the blood-in-the-streets pearl-clutching arguments have been made in every of the 43 states that currently have a shall-issue regime and in none of those places has that concern been realized. In fact, in Texas, which annually publishes the numbers on such things, permit holders are far less likely than even the Police, to be charged with gun-related crimes. But, the issue at hand today is not about places, for which a variety of examples exist for good policy, the issue at hand today is whether NY's policy of requiring "I'll let you know if I'll allow it after you tell me what your reasons are" aka "I'll know it when I see it", meets Constitutional muster.

Or something.

Clearly he hit that on the rebuttal.

My inner voice just wanted more yelling and screaming. Counterproductive, I know. (JK!)

Your thoughts matched mine exactly. Simple minds think alike.

[joshs]

Thanks Josh... I appreciate the insight...

Would it have been considered inappropriate during initial arguments to answer the prohibited places questions more like he did during rebuttal? I acknowledge that the left leaning Justices worry about "blood in the streets", still, after so many years of that not happening.... but... what's the downside to saying something along the lines of.... "Justice Kagan, the blood-in-the-streets pearl-clutching arguments have been made in every of the 43 states that currently have a shall-issue regime and in none of those places has that concern been realized. In fact, in Texas, which annually publishes the numbers on such things, permit holders are far less likely than even the Police, to be charged with gun-related crimes. But, the issue at hand today is not about places, for which a variety of examples exist for good policy, the issue at hand today is whether NY's policy of requiring "I'll let you know if I'll allow it after you tell me what your reasons are" aka "I'll know it when I see it", meets Constitutional muster.

Or something.

Clearly he hit that on the rebuttal.

My inner voice just wanted more yelling and screaming. Counterproductive, I know. (JK!)

In rebuttal, he already had the benefit of a temp check on the Chief, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Since the Chief was the one who started the sensitive place questioning, going super aggressive on it before getting an idea of where the Court is on sensitive places wouldn’t have been wise.

Remember, the members of the Court are pretty strict about discussing issues that could come before them, so sometimes part of oral argument is getting a feel for where they are.

[Totem Polar]

Man, @joshs, I am really glad you stick around this place.

Most def following.

[Kanye Wyoming]

Man, @joshs, I am really glad you stick around this place.

Ditto.