Paul Clement – LonelyMachines

Clement Gets His Say

The NRA has won their motion to gain an allotment of the oral arguments in McDonald v. Chicago. As I’d previously mentioned, Gura gets 30 minutes to argue his case, a portion of which has already been given to the Texas Attorney General.

Frankly, I’m not the least happy having Paul Clement argue on our behalf. This is the guy who argued during Heller that the Supreme Court should stick with a broad standard of scrutiny favoring government interests. Why the NRA retained him, of all people, is beyond me. Stephen Halbrook would have been a much better choice.

As Gura put it, “I hope that this time Paul understands that handgun bans are unconstitutional.”

I’ve no idea as to the Court’s motives in granting the motion. It could be that a couple of Justices are reluctant to overrule Slaughterhouse, or it could just be that they want as many perspectives as possible.

Continued...

Civil Rights

Division in the Ranks

1 comment

Paul Clement, representing the NRA, has filed a motion [pdf] requesting a portion of the time reserved for petitioners’ oral arguments in McDonald v. Chicago. Alan Gura will have thirty minutes to argue his case before the Court, some of which will be given over to Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. I doubt he can spare another ten.

The gist of the NRA motion is that they wish to have more time dedicated to arguments in favor of Due Process incorporation, believing that it “presents the most straightforward and direct route” to incorporating the 2nd Amendment.

The NRA had their chance to argue for selective incorporation. They did so before the 7th Circuit last June, and it was a good case. It was considered, alongside McDonald, to be heard by the Supreme Court. The Court chose McDonald.

The Justices could have taken the easy way out with the NRA case, which asked only for selective incorporation.

Continued...