Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 34

Thread: Lawyer's Who Worked Pro Bono Now Ask For 3.5 million

  1. #1
    Regular Member Virginiaplanter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    402

    Post imported post

    Why do I find this amusing and disturbing at the same time?

    ScotusBlog The Bill for Heller $3.5 million





  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,201

    Post imported post

    It would be interesting to see what if any precedent there is for such a request. It is certainly only due to the District of Columbia's violation of the U.S. Constitution that the case was even necessary therefore it only makes sense that it should be held responsible for the potential payment burden of those involved.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    DFW, Texas, USA
    Posts
    429

    Post imported post

    D.C. is getting off cheap. $3.5 million for thirty plus years of stomping on the Constitution. I'd like to see the Heller attorneys break it off in them.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Arvada, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    30

    Post imported post

    I love it!! Make D.C. pay through the nose for thier trampling of citizen's rights! Maybe then they will learn that it is not in thier best interest to violate the rights granted by the second ammendment!

    This will likely effect the decisions they make for the new "gun ban" law that they are currently deciding.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    This isn't out of the blue. Gura was asked at the VCDL meeting if DC was going to have to pay anything, and he said, "Ah, they will."

    And deservedly so. DC dragged their feet and resisted respecting Mr. Heller's rights for as long as they good, and did so with deep pockets. Pay up, losers. And get ready to pay again, because the lawyers aren't done with you yet.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Buffalo Valley, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    329

    Post imported post

    I don't believe in having the government use taxpayer dollars to pay for defending the rights of citizens.

    But I certainly don't believe in having the government use taxpayer dollars to deny them, either.

    <sigh>

  7. #7
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    RichB 99GTP wrote:
    I love it!! Make D.C. pay through the nose for thier trampling of citizen's rights! Maybe then they will learn that it is not in thier best interest to violate the rights granted by the second ammendment!

    This will likely effect the decisions they make for the new "gun ban" law that they are currently deciding.
    They don't care. It's not their money. Maybe we should have a law that says Mayors, Council members, Governors, and legislatorswould at least share a percentage of this. Now that wouldmake them think twice about making or defending such laws.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    rodbender wrote:
    Now that wouldmake them think twice about making or defending such laws.
    ...make 'em think twice about making or defending any laws!

    I doubt that a law can be 'fixed' with another law. That is how we got to where we are with >2 x 10^4 laws relating to guns alone. We are about to collapse under the weight and expense of jurisprudence and pro-activism.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Greene County
    Posts
    3,844

    Post imported post

    Every DC elected official going back to when these unjust laws were instituted 30+ years ago who supported, defended or helped these laws pass should have to foot the bill, not the tax payers.

    With Fenty picking up the lions share for not conceding the issue when he lost the first time.


    Elected officials that write or vote in favor of unconstitutional laws should be tried for treason.

    Marco
    If you think like a Statist, act like one, or back some, you've given up on freedom and have gone over to the dark side.
    The easiest ex. but probably the most difficult to grasp for gun owners is that fool permission slip so many of you have, especially if you show it off with pride. You should recognize it as an embarrassment, an infringement, a travesty and an affront to a free person.


    ~Alan Korwin

  10. #10
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    Agent19 wrote:
    Elected officials that write or vote in favor of unconstitutional laws should be tried for treason.

    Marco
    I think that's a bit much, but then that may be what it takes to get the politicians to look before they leap, so to speak.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, ,
    Posts
    695

    Post imported post

    If anyone is entitled to a settlement amount, it's the citizens of D.C. who were punished due to the gun ban. since there is no accurate way to figure out exactly who was ACTUALLY punished by this ban, I believe that they should be forced to take the money and buy one XD for every home in D.C.

    as far as the lawyers go, they should be entitled to whatever fee was decided upon at the beginning of the proceedings.

    and as for the treason for unconstitutional laws:

    every elected official is required to swear an oath to uphold and defend the constitution. if not treason, they should still be held liable in some criminal way for passing a knowingly unconstitutional law.



    If you ask me, it would be a much better system if, instead of waiting for an unconstitutionallaw to be passed, waiting for someone to complain, waiting for a court date, etc. If SCOTUS's job was simply to review each law before it was presented on the floor, and signing of on the constitutionality of it THEN, which is what I imagine the founders probably had in mind in the first place.



    one interesting thing to note, is in the fact that the constitution doesn't give the state this role of supreme law, interpeter of the constitution, instead that power was granted to SCOTUS by... SCOTUS.

    the founders should have been a little bit more specific in their description of teh role of SCOTUS

    Citizen, don't say to me what I know you are going to say to me.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    unreconstructed1 wrote:
    If you ask me, it would be a much better system if, instead of waiting for an unconstitutionallaw to be passed, waiting for someone to complain, waiting for a court date, etc. If SCOTUS's job was simply to review each law before it was presented on the floor, and signing of on the constitutionality of it THEN, which is what I imagine the founders probably had in mind in the first place.
    I like Robert Heinlein's idea better: one legislative house makes laws, the other house may only repeal laws, and has no other power.

    In any case, letting SCOTUS review every law before it goes to signing just turns the court into much bigger political battleground than it already is. Imagine confirmation hearings under such a system, and people lobbying justices.

    Also, while the idea of prosecuting lawmakers for voting for unconstitutional bills is appealing, it has plenty of room for abuse. Whichever political faction is ascendant would stack the DOJ in order to prosecute or intimidate the other side, by declaring anything they don't like to be unconstitutional.

    I guess there's no perfect system. No matter what you do to the technical workings of government, as long as the majority of the population holds certain anti-freedom beliefs you're not going to get a satsfactory result.



  13. #13
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    Actually, if you read the Federalist Papers, the role of SCOTUS was to interpret laws, not the Constitution. The Constitution was written for all citizens to understand, simple English. It plainly states in the Federalists Papers that the Constitution was written for the farmer and the scholar to understand.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    unreconstructed1 wrote:
    SNIP Citizen, don't say to me what I know you are going to say to me.
    LOL!

    I must be pretty well known on some points if someone anticipates my commenting.

    Honestly, I didn't find anything to particularly disagree with.

    Article III of the constitution is rather light on wording.

    I can't argue with theidea that SCOTUS assumed the power to review laws for constitutionality. Its a historical fact.

    What were you thinking I was gonna say? For the life of me, I can't guess it.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    rodbender wrote:
    Actually, if you read the Federalist Papers, the role of SCOTUS was to interpret laws, not the Constitution. The Constitution was written for all citizens to understand, simple English. It plainly states in the Federalists Papers that the Constitution was written for the farmer and the scholar to understand.
    Watch out a little bit for the Federalist Papers. One has to take them in context. They are a promotional exercise designed to convince their readers to support the constitution.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  16. #16
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    rodbender wrote:
    Actually, if you read the Federalist Papers, the role of SCOTUS was to interpret laws, not the Constitution. The Constitution was written for all citizens to understand, simple English. It plainly states in the Federalists Papers that the Constitution was written for the farmer and the scholar to understand.
    Watch out a little bit for the Federalist Papers. One has to take them in context. They are a promotional exercise designed to convince their readers to support the constitution.
    OH, I know about taking things in context. It was, at the time, the way that they kept recordings of what the discussions wereaboutwhile writing the Constitution. Along with the diaries and notesof some of the writers.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  17. #17
    Regular Member Virginiaplanter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    402

    Post imported post

    "I like Robert Heinlein's idea better: one legislative house makes laws, the other house may only repeal laws, and has no other power."


    The Colonial Virginia Legislature passed laws and all the laws were subject to expiring usually after three years unless they were once again voted on. I think this needs to be brought back across the country. The truly necessary laws will get acted upon while the unnecessary ones will die automatically because the part-time legislature won't have the time to re-up them all.


    Should we renew Red Light Cameras or renew the Regulation of massage parlors? Let the Speaker of the House Choose.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    I like Robert Heinlein's idea better: one legislative house makes laws, the other house may only repeal laws, and has no other power.
    Remind me of where, please.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Tomahawk wrote:
    I like Robert Heinlein's idea better: one legislative house makes laws, the other house may only repeal laws, and has no other power.
    Remind me of where, please.
    It was mentioned by the Prof in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress when they were discussing the framework of the new lunar government, IIRC.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, ,
    Posts
    695

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    What were you thinking I was gonna say? For the life of me, I can't guess it.

    actually, I wasalluding to a private message conversation that we had in which youstated many of the same things to me that I am now stating in my previous post, only at the time I was somewhat openly skeptical about teh great SCOTUS screw up that the founders left us with.

    After that conversation, I dug a little deeper into a portion of constitutional history that I had only glanced at before



    rodbender wrote:
    Actually, if you read the Federalist Papers, the role of SCOTUS was to interpret laws, not the Constitution. The Constitution was written for all citizens to understand, simple English. It plainly states in the Federalists Papers that the Constitution was written for the farmer and the scholar to understand.
    exactly. it was their job to determine the constitutionality of laws, not to "re-interpet" the constitution itself. I speak a lot regarding the decline of the Federal Republic, and the rise of he FED which has replaced it, and most times I specify that the process began with Lincoln. through these new studies, I have found that while Lincoln greatly increased teh size of teh FED beauracracy, it was SCOTUS that laid the groundwork.

    Incredibly, SCOTUS is the first federal branch which vestednon constitutional powers to itself, and the other 2 branches merely played catch-up.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    I think the most important thing to remember about laws is that all laws are only enforceable, eventually, at the point of a gun. Anyone who does not believe that see Ed and Elaine Brown's standoff in NH against armed federal agents over failure to pay taxes.

    Here's what I have come up with to explain my take on the matter:

    Laws passed by the government are ultimately only enforceable against the citizens at the point of a government agent wielded and directed gun.

    The United States Constitution, the highest law of the land, ultimately is only enforceable against the federal government at the point of We, The People's wielded and directed guns. Hence the importance of the 2A.

    I think every law passed by the United States Congress should be required to be prefaced by, "Under threat of lethal force against the Citizens of the United States of America we hereby pass the following: " Might make them think a little bit about how truly serious the potential effects of their laws are. Can you imagine the worst dictators in history willing to pass a law that could eventually allow lethal force against a citizen over what kind of light bulb they use in their home? Or what sorts of signs they post in their offices? Or all sorts of piddly a$$ controlling laws that congress has passed intruding on our day to day lives that could eventually lead to arrest at the point of a gun and if resisted, the death of a citizen.

    Can you see sitting in the ever-after talking to other dead spirits and being asked how you died and having to say, "Well, it's like this. I stocked up on iridescent light bulbs before the CFC bulb requirement went into effect. My neighbor wanted some so I agreed to sell them a few boxes. Well, the gov't heard about my illegal sale of iridescent bulbs, and sent me a subpoena to appear in court. Well I thought it was stupid so I didn't go. A few weeks later federal agents showed up at my house. They didn't identify themselves immediately and as I went to adjust my OC pistol for comfort I was shot 17 times and died. Over a light bulb."

    So yeah, I hope they get 3.5 mill. And I hope the new Heller case as to semi-autos is won and they get another 3.5 mill. And I hope that all the law abiding gun owners in this country with law suits pending over having their rights violated get a big check that is not in the best interests of the city or state and their lawyers go back and sue for more millions. Let the politicians explain to the citizens that their local taxes are being raised because of the huge losses to law suits for violating citizen rights and hopefully, a peaceful rebellion follows limiting government back to its constitutional role.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    SNIP I think the most important thing to remember...
    Good points.

    Gotta get me some groovy irridescent light bulbs. Cool, daddy 'o. I'm guessing you meant incandescent. :P



    "Lets just say that despite me having plenty of bulbs, the feds took a dim view and put my lights out."

    --Citizen Spirit, Cloud 9, Seventh.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    374

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    deepdiver wrote:
    SNIP I think the most important thing to remember...
    Good points.

    Gotta get me some groovy irridescent light bulbs. Cool, daddy 'o. I'm guessing you meant incandescent. :P



    "Lets just say that despite me having plenty of bulbs, the feds took a dim view and put my lights out."

    --Citizen Spirit, Cloud 9, Seventh.


    Seriously, though, I may have to stock up on regular light bulbs at some point.

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    deepdiver wrote:
    SNIP I think the most important thing to remember...
    Good points.

    Gotta get me some groovy irridescent light bulbs. Cool, daddy 'o. I'm guessing you meant incandescent. :P



    "Lets just say that despite me having plenty of bulbs, the feds took a dim view and put my lights out."

    --Citizen Spirit, Cloud 9, Seventh.
    DOH Yes I did, Citizen. Man was a fried last night. Didn't realize how badly until I re-read this thread :shock:.

    Thanks for having my back on that one.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,509

    Post imported post

    rodbender wrote:
    Actually, if you read the Federalist Papers, the role of SCOTUS was to interpret laws, not the Constitution. The Constitution was written for all citizens to understand, simple English. It plainly states in the Federalists Papers that the Constitution was written for the farmer and the scholar to understand.
    Farmers have no problem understanding the plain language of the Constitution. It seems to be lawyers and politicians who have comprehension problems.


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •