Just thought I'd let you know that the first part of my comments on historical errors in McDonald amicus briefs is up at On Second Opinion. The first deals with problems in the English/Early American historians' brief. Six of its twenty-one signers were also signers of the Heller historians' brief. Thus, the newer one has the same kinds of problems as that filed in Heller. I suspect there will be several parts or posts dealing with this brief, and several more dealing with one not related to English history. There is a strong attempt in McDonald to re-argue Heller historical points.
That the Chicago briefs are trying to re-argue Heller seems to be the default for most of them. Read the whole thing to see how weak the claims they're making really are and how Anti's need to distort history to defend their beliefs.
3 comments:
That the Chicago briefs are trying to re-argue Heller seems to be the default for most of them.
I can't figure out how they came to the conclusion that this is good legal strategy. Everyone with the majority on the Heller decision is still on SCOTUS. These people are trying to tell them that they blew it. That tends not to be a good way to elicit the kind of response they are presumably hoping for.
I noticed the same thing as I read through the briefs and I agree that telling the Justices that they got it wrong is a most ridiculous strategy.
A better choice would be to work within the framework available post-Heller.
It's almost like they want to lose, or at the very least, have no idea how to win.
So, you can lie in briefs?
Post a Comment