March 18, 2008
SCOTUSBlog Live-Blogging the Gun Ban Case
Since we couldn't get into the Supreme Court itself and hardly consider ourselves legal experts, we're going to...link to someone else that's live-blogging the audio proceedings.
The folks at SCOTUSBlog have been doing a fantastic job summarizing the main arguments, describing the key legal issues, and generally keeping us all up-to-date on the legal machinations that escape simpletons like us. They'll be live-blogging the audio, which is being broadcast on CSPAN.
So if you're not a constitutional expert or don't have 75 minutes to give to the Supreme Court, check out SCOTUSBlog. And if you can't even do that, stay tuned to DCist for our analysis of their analysis. It'll be like a huge game of live-blogging telephone.
|
Advertisement: DCist Continues Below!
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
If you need help figuring out who's speaking. Here's a hint ... it's not Clarence Thomas. The man never asks questions. He says he finds questions generally useless. Great.
Not just questions - Thomas thinks the whole system of oral arguments is useless.
Good choice, SCOTUSblog is great.
Anyone know if I can download the case onto my Ipod?
Having listened to the arguments, DC lost.
Well, I think Clarence Thomas is useless.
So there.
Does anybody here actually think a hour of oral arguments is going to sway any of the justices' opinions on the issue? It might happen 1 in 100 cases at most, the arguments are just for show...
MS: Oyez should have an mp3 of it at some point (it's where I got the audio of the case my dad argued last term!), though they don't appear to have posted it just yet. I'd say, keep on checking this page (under the "Case Media" heading) and you'll get it soon enough.
Why is Thomas useless?
There's also a transcript of the arguments on the Supreme Court web page, if you're into that sort of thing.
Clarence Thomas is the man. Stop hating.
Thomas is useless because he believes American society stopped evolving in 1789.
His judicial philosophy can be summed up as "How can I screw the little guy?"
Kind of simplistic assertion that Thomas believes "American society stopped evolving in 1789." I have heard that before. You get high fives if you say that in a college setting. Fellow travelers love the one liners as well.
You might disagree with Thomas's views, but I doubt he is useless. I would think the big bad bogeyman serves to motivate liberals. Being able to point to the Thomas and Scalia is probably the best thing organizations like Alliance for Justice have going for them.
FYI, I don't have much respect for the man's judicial opinions, but my earlier flippant comment was merely a response to the poster who pointed out that Thomas finds oral arguments to be "useless".
Indeed.
People liberals agree with = good.
People liberals disagree with = bad, useless, etc.
And they claim to be the open-minded ones. Uh-huh. Just because you repeat something over and over again, doesn't make it true.
I know many more open-minded conservatives than open-minded liberals and that's even more unsettling because I know many more liberals than conservatives.
HCE - maybe that's just your circle of acquaintances then. i know much more open-minded liberals than open-minded conservatives.
i think any of us could just pull out a list of people we know and assert stuff. it's just personal experiences. i'm willing to bet that, overall, people with a more liberal outlook are more tolerant of ideas that diverge from their own. of course, i can't interview everyone in the world, so i can't prove that.
ymmv.
People who are open minded = good.
People who make sweeping generalizations = bad.
The audio of the oral argument (both streaming and in mp3 format) is now up at the link I posted yesterday.
I recall hearing that Thomas got chastised for digressive comments when he first got on the court, and hasn't said a peep since. There is an art to the practice, and Thomas didn't get it.