Any other "SCOTUS nerds" out there who will be waiting for transcripts of todays oral arguments?

[Statistical]

You can often glean enough to make an educated guess on how the case will be decided by how the Justices ask questions of both sides. Like my mother always said "it isn't what you say but how you say it".

Sadly there will be no audio tape of the oral arguments for McDonald v. Chicago

The Supreme Court has refused a request by cable and other broadcast networks to release on Tuesday the audiotape of the Court’s hearing in the Second Amendment case, McDonald, et al., v. Chicago, et al. (08-1521). The refusal was conveyed to the networks by the Court, but no document was released on it. The Court has released promptly the audiotape on only one case during recent months — the Citizens United v. FEC case, heard in September before the current Term opened. Under current policy, the written transcript of Tuesday’s argument will be released later in the day. The argument is scheduled for one hour, starting at 10 a.m..
http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/03/no-audio-release-on-mcdonald/

Still I will be waiting for the transcripts to make an informed opinion. I like original sources and not the 20 different layers of spin you get from the "media".

Anyone else read transcripts of oral arguments? :) Or am I the only one? :cry:

[joeybee12]

1. Why would you need a transcript? 5 of them, the Jackass 5 have

already decided, rule of law, precedence and the constitution be damned.

[joeybee12]

2. Why would you need a transcript? 5 of them, the Jackass 5 have

already decided, rule of law, precedence and the constitution be damned.

[Statistical]

4. It never is that simple.

Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy are rather anti-states rights (which not to get on a rant should be called "states powers" because states don't have any rights).

Still I think Scalia while pointing out the inherent flaw in Cruikshank has already tipped his hand. Cruikshank case (1876) declared neither the 1st nor the 2nd is incorporated against the states. The 1st has been reversed due to 14th it seems shaky legal ground at best to say the 1st has been incorporated via the 14th but somehow the 2nd hasn't and Cruikshank stands but only stand on the portion related to the 2nd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank

Precedents have lasting consequences. The case could be used as precedent in a totally unrelated topic decades from now. For example say the federal courts find marriage to be a fundamental right. An individual is a state not allowing same sex marriage could sue using the "gun case" as precedent and find the state law unconstitutional due to its ban on a fundamental right. To think the case's lasting impact is limited to "gunz" is silly. Justices are always looking at the bigger indirect issue. The reverse is also true a failure to incorporate (depending on wording of decision) could be used as precedent for those who wish to allow state to infringe upon a right the federal courts have found to be protected.

It would be far easier for marriage equality for example to win at federal level (where judges tend to be more progressive) and have that decision applied to all states then try and get marriage equality in say Texas or Georgia.

Both "sides" have some serious philosophical issues.
The one who are generally speaking "pro-incorporation" are the ones who ruled against Heller.
The ones who are generally speaking "anti-incorporation" are the ones who ruled in favor of Heller.

Maybe I am the only one who sees the irony in it. I also don't think Kennedy vote is locked up. The issue will come down to "fundamental rights".

[tekisui]

3. I usually read the decisions directly.

As a pre-law student, I am reading Court opinions regularly, anyway. It is best to read it without the spin.

[ThomWV]

5. Oh hell yes ...

By the way, the word is "glean".

[Statistical]

6. Thanks.

I really wish they had allowed audio recording. SCTOUS Blog usually runs a live podcast and I was going to listen to it at work.

[Cyrano]

7. Justice Kennedy is the "wild card" in the deck.

I know that more often than not, Kennedy will vote with the crazies. But once in a while, an inexplicable wave of sanity will hit him and he'll vote with the four sane Justices.

The man is an enigma and it's always difficult to predict which way he's going to go on any given issue.

The same was true of Sandra Day O'Connor, up until the day she decided to be one of the five Justices to appoint George W. Bush Prez of the U.S. back in 2000. From that day on, she was just one more political piece of rancid garbage.

To date, Kennedy has not gone that far. He's still a mystery in many ways. Nonetheless, I don't hold out too much hope for him coming down on the side of sanity in this case. Then again, you never know.

[Captain Hilts]

8. I just walked by the Court. All sorts of crazies, but not as many as I expected. Didn't look like

a "well-organized militia" to me.

[Statistical]

9. Militia doesn't need to be well organized just well regulated.

:)

Also not sure if federal govt would allow a state militia to assemble on federal land.

[Captain Hilts]

10. I stand corrected! nt