This decision may come out tomorrow morning, but more than likely not until next monday (28th).
I'm going to just go nuts here for a moment and predict that it will be 9-0 in favor of incorporation, with Ginsburg writing the majority opinion, with the justices split 5-4 in favor of P or I incorporation over due process. Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Thomas for P or I, and Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Kennedy for due process. Crazy, right? Probably, yes. But all the stars are aligned for it to happen. You just have to convince the "leftist" justices who hate guns to see the bigger picture of what is at stake here. I think Alan Gura did a wonderful job of that with his briefs and oral arguments, and there have been more than a few amicus curiae filed in support of P or I incorporation by traditional leftists who you would not expect to see in a gun case like this. There's no reason why it can't happen.
I got your bet in writing! I will provide the bbq sauce!wewd wrote:This decision may come out tomorrow morning, but more than likely not until next monday (28th).
I'm going to just go nuts here for a moment and predict that it will be 9-0 in favor of incorporation, with Ginsburg writing the majority opinion, with the justices split 5-4 in favor of P or I incorporation over due process. Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Thomas for P or I, and Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Kennedy for due process. Crazy, right? Probably, yes. But all the stars are aligned for it to happen. You just have to convince the "leftist" justices who hate guns to see the bigger picture of what is at stake here. I think Alan Gura did a wonderful job of that with his briefs and oral arguments, and there have been more than a few amicus curiae filed in support of P or I incorporation by traditional leftists who you would not expect to see in a gun case like this. There's no reason why it can't happen.
Man, what are you smokin? :shock:
If the decision comes out this way, I'll eat my holster!
From an argument standpoint, I thought that Paul Clement did a better job. Alan Gura seemed to stumble around a bit. I don't think he brought out the points the justices wanted to hear. I think they wanted to hear more about liberty, unenumerated rights, and conceptual approaches to applyingprivileges and immunities. I think that Gura's arguments missed the target set up by the justices. It almost seemed as if he was not prepared for their line of questioning.
According to this SCOTUS blog, the decision will come down monday.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/06/live-blog-opinions-6-24-10/