Forums Forums - Off Topic Forum FUN




Go Back   Forums Forums - Off Topic Forum FUN > Debate Forums > Political Debate Forum

Political Debate Forum All debates involving Politics goes here. Warning: The posts/threads contained in this section of the forum can get heated.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-14-2019, 01:11 AM
jim slagle's Avatar
jim slagle jim slagle is offline
Cold Member

 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 14,004
Thanks: 38,450
Thanked 19,904 Times in 8,255 Posts
jim slagle is on a distinguished road
Default How Not To Win Friends And Influence Justices

NO LAWYERS - ONLY GUNS AND MONEY
"SEND LAWYERS, GUNS AND MONEY. THE SHIT HAS HIT THE FAN." - WARREN ZEVON

TUESDAY, AUGUST 13, 2019

https://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.co...influence.html

How Not To Win Friends And Influence Justices

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) considers himself worthy of authoring an amicus brief for a case before the Supreme Court. He should think again. Despite a long legal career before being elected to the Senate which culminated with him serving as both the Attorney General of Rhode Island for one term and before that as the Clinton-appointed US Attorney for Rhode Island, his brief in NY State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York is a polemic and not an argument.

Moreover, as the son and grandson of diplomats, you would have thought somewhere along the line it would have rubbed off on him how to be diplomatic towards those that matter. Daddy served as deputy ambassador to the Republic of Vietnam followed up as the ambassador to Laos and then Thailand. Granddad was ambassador to Guatemala and Colombia and served earlier on the commission that wrote the Treaty of Versailles.

Whitehouse was joined in this polemic, I mean amicus brief, by Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) who are all lawyers by training. They begin the brief arguing that the NYSRPA, the petitioners, are asking the Court to be their allies in " a “project” to expand the Second Amendment and thwart gun-safety (sic) regulations." They continue that it is no wonder polls show the Supreme Court is "motivated mainly by politics." It goes downhill from here.

They then argue that it was the National Rifle Association, the Federalist Society, and other conservative groups fought to make sure that Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh would be on the Court to "break the tie" in favor of the Second Amendment. It goes on to say about the Federalist Society:

Quote:
The Society counts over eighty-six percent of Trump administration nominees to the circuit courts of appeal and to this Court as active members. It is not yet clear who the powerful funders are behind Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society judicial selection effort, nor what took place as the Federalist Society was “insourced” into the Trump administration’s judicial selection process.5 But massive political spending and secrecy are rarely a salubrious combination.
In other words, these fine senators are pissed off that President Trump has nominated active members of an organization dedicated to an interpretation of the Constitution that preserves the original meaning. They would much prefer those of the Living Constitution stripe.

This brief then goes on to attack the amicus briefs in favor of the NY State Rifle and Pistol Association implying that they are stooges of the NRA. Eight of the amici are affiliated with the NRA. However, most of those are from only one amicus brief - that of the National Sheriffs Association. Then, heaven forbid, a number of amici are 503(c)(4) social welfare organization who are not required to disclose their donors. As the secretary of the Maryland Democratic Party might note, this makes them harder to dox. Of course much of this is ludicrous. Accusing groups like the Pink Pistols and GOA of being stooges of the NRA is laughable.

Whitehouse ends Section I of the brief with this.

Quote:
Out in the real world, Americans are murdered each day with firearms in classrooms or movie theaters or churches or city streets, and a generation of preschoolers is being trained in active-shooter survival drills. In the cloistered confines of this Court, and notwithstanding the public imperatives of these massacres, the NRA and its allies brashly presume, in word and deed, that they have a friendly audience for their “project.”
You might think Whitehouse might now try to curry favor with the justices in Section II and you'd be wrong. After a few paragraphs saying how the Court shouldn't be answering moot questions and legislating from the bench, he then accuses the Court's majority of being the tools of big business, the GOP, and fat cats.

Quote:
Recent patterns raise legitimate questions about whether these limits remain. From October Term 2005 through October Term 2017, this Court issued 78 5-4 (or 5-3) opinions in which justices appointed by Republican presidents provided all five votes in the majority. In 73 of these 5-4 decisions, the cases concerned interests important to the big funders, corporate influencers, and political base of the Republican Party. And in each of these 73 cases, those partisan interests prevailed.
Then he accuses the petitioners of engaging in strategic "faux litigation". What he is speaking of is strategic civil rights litigation with carefully chosen plaintiffs and with the purpose of building precedent. The interesting historical aspect of this is that the model for this strategic litigation was none other than the NAACP Legal Defense Fund run at the time by future Justice Thurgood Marshall.

Quote:
For example, we have seen flocks of “freedom-based public interest law” organizations that exist only to change public policy through litigation, and which often do not disclose their funders. We have seen behavioral signals, like litigants who rush to lose cases in lower courts “as quickly as practicable and without argument, so that [they] can expeditiously take their claims to the Supreme Court” (ordinarily, in litigation, litigants seek to win). Almost invariably, and as we have seen in this case, such plaintiffs are accompanied by throngs of professional amici, whose common funding sources and connections to the organizations behind the supposed party-in-interest are obscured by ineffective disclosure rules
Instead of being flattered, Whitehouse seems to say how dare these dirty, low down conservatives imitate the tactics and strategies of the Left!

He then ends the brief with a threat.

Quote:
The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be “restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.” Particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to heal.
Whitehouse is no FDR but he thinks his threat of packing the Court is going to sway it. His demeaning attitude should irritate even the most ardent liberals on the Court. Whether this case is ultimately dismissed as moot or not, there will be more cases that have even more impact for Second Amendment rights that are now or soon will be in the pipeline.

POSTED BY JOHN RICHARDSON AT 8:57 PM
__________________
.

The United States Constitution ©1787. All Rights Reserved

Sometimes I'm fast. Most of the time I'm half fast!

Never put off till tomorrow what you can avoid all together!

Friends come and go, but enemies accumulate

FF REQUIRES NO PHYSICAL FITNESS PROGRAM.
EVERYONE GETS ENOUGH EXERCISE JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS, FLYING
OFF THE HANDLE, RUNNING DOWN THE MODERATORS, KNIFING FRIENDS IN THE
BACK, DODGING RESPONSIBILITY AND PUSHING THEIR LUCK.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to jim slagle For This Useful Post:
Doc  (08-14-2019), m1west (08-14-2019), mla2ofus (08-14-2019)
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Justices allow public prayers at New York town's council meetings Doc Religious Debate Forum 1 05-06-2014 04:54 PM
under the influence of chips luvs Junkman's Corner 2 02-28-2013 12:07 PM
Supreme Court Justices ‘Blast’ EPA for Telling Idaho Couple They Can’t Build on ‘Prot Cowboy Open Forum 4 01-11-2012 04:56 PM
Security Report: Some Canadian Politicians under foreign influence Melensdad Political Debate Forum 4 06-24-2010 07:04 AM
How to win friends and influence people x2! grizzer Political Debate Forum 12 02-03-2010 07:11 PM





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright © 2002 - 2018 www.ForumsForums.com