PDA

View Full Version : Jeffrey Toobin on Parker


WokMaster1
09-25-2007, 11:29 AM
Was listening to Ronn Owens on KGO this morning. He had Jeff Toobin on as a guest. Jeff wrote the "The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court"

A caller called in about "Parker/Hellier" case. He said that after talking to the judges, he feels strongly that SCOTUS will rule in favor of the 2A. He added to say that the cities' ban on people's right on bear arms is unconstitutional.

Just a small blurp to share.;)

bwiese
09-25-2007, 11:31 AM
Wow.

Because Toobin's commentary somewhat veers towards statist/big G mindset.

Steyr_223
09-25-2007, 8:54 PM
Great for Toobin..

Piper
09-25-2007, 11:01 PM
Was listening to Ronn Owens on KGO this morning. He had Jeff Toobin on as a guest. Jeff wrote the "The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court"

A caller called in about "Parker/Hellier" case. He said that after talking to the judges, he feels strongly that SCOTUS will rule in favor of the 2A. He added to say that the cities' ban on people's right on bear arms is unconstitutional.

Just a small blurp to share.;)

Just wondering who said this, Toobin or the caller?

Davidwhitewolf
09-26-2007, 8:49 AM
Toobin was on NPR's Fresh Air interview program last week and said much the same thing, except that he worded it differently -- he said rather morosely that he expected the court to rule "against gun control."

Piper
09-26-2007, 9:22 AM
Hm, I wonder if Toobin is just trying to stir the pot or if he really does have the inside scoop. It seems rather surprising to me that SCOTUS would show their hand before things really got going.

WokMaster1
09-26-2007, 11:32 AM
Hm, I wonder if Toobin is just trying to stir the pot or if he really does have the inside scoop. It seems rather surprising to me that SCOTUS would show their hand before things really got going.

It was Toobin who said it. The caller just wanted to get his take on the matter.

He did say that all the info he gathered were on condition that the sources were not to be revealed (ie the judges). Can he be trusted? Hmmm! I'll be cautiously optimistic...smile a lot and never turn your back from him..;)

bulgron
09-26-2007, 12:23 PM
Well, I am not a lawyer, but I have a good friend who is. We spent a fair amount of time last night discussing (arguing) the Heller case. His feeling is that SCOTUS is going to surprise everyone with their ruling. Basically, he's expecting them to come up with some unexpected reasoning that allows them to either uphold or overturn Parker without actually saying whether the 2A is an individual right.

Understand that he hasn't read Parker, or looked at any of this funny 2A stuff in any great detail. His comments were all based on how Supreme Courts have behaved in the past. This is especially true when a case is as culturally significant as this one is.

That's his argument.

I continue to contend that Roberts wants to make his mark and that he'll use this case to do it. I pointed out that if SCOTUS upholds Heller, then they'll actually be trailing U.S. culture, insofar as the majority of states are relaxing rather than tightening gun control. I also discussed some of the ways that D.C. has screwed up the appeal.

But he thinks I'm being naive in just how hard a Supreme Court can wiggle to get out of upsetting an apple cart in the way that Heller threatens to do.

I finally bet my friend good money that Heller is going to go "my way" on all three points in the D.C. appeal. He took the bet because, I believe, he feels that he'll be able to wiggle out of it no matter what SCOTUS does with Heller. Slippery people, lawyers.

By the end of the night the only thing we really had agreed on was that watching Supreme Court decisions is way more interesting than watching most professional sports. But then, we were drinking a fair amount, and the argument was entertaining, so you'll just have to take that decision with a grain of salt. :D

bulgron
09-26-2007, 12:24 PM
He did say that all the info he gathered were on condition that the sources were not to be revealed (ie the judges).

Actually, he could easily have been speaking to the clerks, who have an unexpectedly strong influence on these things.

WokMaster1
09-26-2007, 12:28 PM
Actually, he could easily have been speaking to the clerks, who have an unexpectedly strong influence on these things.

Possibly, but he sort of gave Ronn Owens the runaround about how he can't revealed his sources. That's why I'm just going to smile a lot & keep an eye on him......;)

hoffmang
09-26-2007, 3:26 PM
There are three ways this can go for us - a strong win, a middling win, and a loss.

A loss seriously hurts the chances for a Democrat winning the White House. That's going to exert some pressure on the more leftward leaning justices to give us a middling win. That's why I'm thinking its 7-2 for only and individual right and only full handgun bans clearly violate it - nothing more.

-Gene

bulgron
09-26-2007, 6:44 PM
There are three ways this can go for us - a strong win, a middling win, and a loss.

A loss seriously hurts the chances for a Democrat winning the White House. That's going to exert some pressure on the more leftward leaning justices to give us a middling win. That's why I'm thinking its 7-2 for only and individual right and only full handgun bans clearly violate it - nothing more.

-Gene

That's enough, although I'm hoping that they don't say "only full bans violate the right" but instead say "clearly full bans violate the right."

N6ATF
09-26-2007, 11:55 PM
Actually, he could easily have been speaking to the clerks, who have an unexpectedly strong influence on these things.

I was just about to say the clerks...