January 3, 2008
Morrison Firing Casts Doubt on Supreme Court Gun Case
As we mentioned at the end of the day yesterday, Acting D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles has fired Alan Morrison, the lawyer who had been preparing to defend the District's handgun ban before the Supreme Court in March. The timing of this move leads to all manner of questions about how seriously the Fenty administration actually takes this Supreme Court case, and whether the Mayor and the Acting AG are capable of putting important legal proceedings above personal disagreements.
It's been widely reported at this point that a territorial feud between Attorney General Linda Singer and Nickles, who was then Fenty's special counsel, led to Singer's resignation a few weeks ago. Morrison was a Singer appointee, and despite his overwhelmingly unique qualifications to argue this case before the high court (he's argued some 20 Supreme Court cases before, including a number of landmark cases that involved deciding constitutional issues which nobody in recent history has had an opportunity to argue in a previous case -- which is exactly the situation with the District's gun case), Nickles appears to have fired him for no other reason than his ties to Singer. The District's brief in the case, which Morrison had a leading role in producing, is due tomorrow -- meaning Nickles more or less waited until Morrison put a final polish on the brief and then gave him the boot. By having an aide send him an email. Ouch.
But nevermind that Supreme Court arguments are almost always handled by the architect of the brief -- in this case Morrison -- and that Morrison had more experience in making these kinds of unique constitutional arguments. Let's give Fenty and Nickles the benefit of the doubt and say that they didn't have confidence in Morrison's ability to do the job. But then, here's Fenty's statement:
Peter Nickles' expertise in litigation is going to greatly benefit residents of the District of Columbia in our handgun case pending before the Supreme Court. It is important that he move quickly to build a team and a strategy to maximize our chances of winning this important case.What? Nickles is widely regarded to be a highly competent litigator, but he has nowhere close to the amount of experience Morrison has in Supreme Court litigation. Nickles has also said he plans on keeping D.C. Solicitor General Todd Kim, Thomas Goldstein of Akin Gump and Walter Dellinger of O'Melveny & Myers, the three lawyers who had been working with Morrison to prepare the brief, on the case, possibly tapping one of them to make the arguments. So how is keeping the same team you had, minus the one guy who was heading up the entire effort, add up to building a new team?
None of it makes much sense until you factor in Morrison's statements to the Washington Post indicating that Nickles' sole interest was to purge Singer's allies from the AG's office and the handgun case. No matter how Fenty and Nickles play it, the District's handgun case in the Supreme Court has now been set back months.
|
MORRISON: I have a bad feeling about this.
NICKLES: I don't sense anything.
MORRISON: It's not about the mission, Master, it's
something...elsewhere...elusive.
NICKLES: Don't center on your anxiety, Morrison-Wan. Keep your concentration here and now where it belongs.
MORRISON: Master Fenty says I should be mindful of the future...
NICKLES: .....but not at the expense of the moment. Be mindful of the
living Force, my young Padawan.
MORRISON : Yes, Master...how do you think the Supreme Court will deal with the Mayor's demands?
NICKLES: These Federation types are cowards. The negotiations will be short.
HA!
Suck it Fenty fans! Your boy is just like all the other DC pols.
"overwhelmingly unique qualifications to argue this case before the high court"
Woah, that's a bit of an overstatement. First of all, a lot of people think that there are no shades of unique, there's only unique or not. But that aside (since you seem to be saying that he is actually unique) arguing 20 cases before the Supreme Court is certainly qualifying, but I wouldn't say it's uniquely qualifying. People like Tribe and Olson have argued significantly more than that. And whether the issue has been recently argued or not does not matter that much, in my opinion.
I was going to crack wise about the "overwhelmingly unique" thing, but I let it ride. But since Reid brought it up, I gotta put myself in the "it's either unique or it isn't" crowd. How can something be more or less unique than something else? Every time I see/read that something is "very unique," or the "most unique," it just makes my skin crawl and my teeth itch. It's like saying a woman is "really pregnant." A radio ad was running incessantly before Christmas (I think it was for a diamond company or something) where the guy said, "In this season, buy the most eternal unique gift!" and I had to stifle myself from driving onto the sidewalk and wiping out everyone at a bus stop. I mean, what the hell does that even mean?
[/grammar nazi mode off]
And yeah, they're going to lose their case, so getting fired is probably the best thing that can happen to them, career wise. Who wants to have their fingerprints on this train wreck?
As I said on the earlier thread, my two guesses on who Pete Nickels finds to argue the case before the Supremes: 1) Pete Nickels; 2) Pete Nickels' former law partner.
It was super douchey to fire Morrison after he had done all the work on the brief and, maybe even more super duper douchey, was Nickels having his assistant fire Morrison.
Fenty's not known for his legal prowess (hence those two sanctions from the DC Bar). He is clearly heavily reliant on Nickels' legal knowledge. But what if Nickels is giving bad advice? Who tells Fenty?
Y'all are right, that "overwhelmingly" is dumb. I blame the viral plague and NyQuil currently running through my system.
Of course Olson's argued more cases - he was the Solicitor General. But he's a conservative, and wouldn't be the one to argue this case. I also think that you underestimate the skill it takes to craft and argue novel legal arguments successfully. Basically, Morrison was picked specifically to argue this case. Firing him is one of the most idiotic things the Fenty administration has done. And it makes me think that Nickles is a cocky nincompoop, kind of like the president.
The best that can be hoped for is that he picks Dellinger to argue the case.
So let me get this straight Linda Singer the Attorney General that hasn't practiced law in something like 15 years picks somebody to argue the case. She resigns after feuding with the Mayor's general counsel. A dude who was a partner at one of the largest and best respected firms in town. A litigation partner no less. He feels that the person Singer picked isn't the best choice and makes a change. I'm gonna at least give the guy the benefit of the doubt. That being said, I do hope the district looses as the ban is frankly ridiculous.
Nickles has no special expertise in appellate litigation as far as I can tell, much less Supreme Court advocacy, a specialty in itself. If he's never argued a case at the high court, dollars to donuts he wants to argue this one himself for bragging rights.
Beyond that, Nickles comes off as Cheney-like -- or even Rasputin-like.
Last line, "No matter how Fenty and Nickles play it, the District's handgun case in the Supreme Court has now been setback months."
Two words, set back, for the verb.
Sorry to hear about your cold, Sommer. Hope you recover quickly.
As a District resident, I am crying crocodile tears for Fenty and Nickles' gun case.
Frankly I don't think oral arguments matter that much period. They mostly exist to give the impression of an open hearing, but I would guess that most justices already have their minds made up based on the briefs and their own predispositions.
Has Nickles still not moved into the city over a year after being appointed?
If he fired Morrison from a potentially landmark Supreme Court case because of personal disagreements, he seems pretty small-minded to me.
While I get the peev about reading "overwhelmingly unique" I have to argue against the binary on/off of "unique"...
Well, not that exactly, but the urge to qualify uniqueness. I think that stems from one's desire to say "Not only is it unique, but that destinction matters!!" Sometimes something could be truly unique (ha!) but no one would give a rat's ass. Othertimes, when there's a singular significant we get all muddled.
However, this isn't one of those times.
I do think it's quaint that some "legal celebrities" have their own fan club. I, the uninitiated.
I would say that a woman who is 9 months pregnant is "really pregnant" vis a vis a women who just conceived.
Yes, but which mother is the most unique?
To those that think oral arguments do not matter, you just have to review some of the written records some time (or better yet attend in person) to revise your view. Yes, the justices basically know how they are going to vote going into it. But the oral arguments are a time to lobby their fellow justices and are usually supported (or not in this case) by a good SC jurist. It is also the opportunity to build how the majority or dissenting opinion will read. While this is not important to whether the law will be unconstitutional or not, it could have a lasting impact on how future justices see gun laws (if and when we see another shift in ideology on the court).
Props to Sommer for stepping up and admitting the gaff. Don't worry, the writing on DCist is usually solid, and editorials bad calls like this are... well... overwhelmingly unique.
More importantly, I just want to repeat what dcgrrrl said:
"Morrison was picked specifically to argue this case. Firing him is one of the most idiotic things the Fenty administration has done." I've been a fan of Fenty's, but this bad judgement on such an important issue is just horrible.
Monkey, the mother who's carrying lil' Damian, The Antichrist, would be most unique. ;)
Stu - She's hardly unique. You're forgetting the Antichrist's older brother. That guy who got nailed to the tree? THAT was a unique birth. The other instance of course being Rosemary's Baby. I mean, it's not like Satan's monogomous or anything.