2010 – Page 163 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Who’s Bringin’ the Stupid Today?

I pose the title question in a format that Senator Daylin Leach may understand – given that it reflects his own rhetoric against those with whom he disagrees.

Senator Leach, in all the wisdom he can muster, tried to explain his theory – which we will call Leach’s Law – on the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court that might have reached #fail proportions.

Our favorite 5 are nothing if not predictable. You don’t even have to know the issue before the court to know who is going to win. All you need to know are the litigants. So for example, if it’s a prosecutor vs. a criminal defendant, well then the prosecutor is going to win. If it’s a civil-rights plaintiff vs. a company accused of discrimination, then the company is going to win, unless the plaintiffs are white guys, in which case the white guys are going to win. In fact, its a pretty good rule of thumb that if the case is white guys against anyone else for any reason the white guys are going to win.

Using Senator Leach’s theory, let’s examine the McDonald case.

Otis McDonald is not white. Colleen Lawson is not a man. Chicago, in this case, plays the role of prosecutor. And both McDonald and Lawson, along with the other plaintiffs, are seeking relief from a civil rights violation. Under Leach’s Law, the five Justices will vote that the handgun ban stands and governments are free to continue denying a fundamental right to minority citizens.

Wait. That’s not the conclusion he reaches. I guess even Leach’s Law is meant to be broken every once in a while since he actually believes the minority parties will win over the government oppressing a civil right.

If you want more of his twisted logic, feel free to click on over and read why he looks forward to the result of the case so he can push more gun control. (See, I told you it was twisted.)

The Washington Experience

Over the course of the weekend, we met up with at least four lobbyists from wildly varying industries/issues who all know each other and work together from time-to-time when their issues cross. And while you hear some politicians decry “special interests” in politics, every single one of them represents real people on the ground or industries that make products you and I use every day. These people are not just my friends and acquaintances, they really do represent me. And if you read and enjoy this blog, they represent you, too. Remember that any time a politician decries a “special interest,” they are really complaining that someone who disagrees with them has the nerve to speak up.

Starbucks Continuing to Hold

Makes me wonder how loud they are going to have to say no before the gun control groups get it:

As the public debate continues, we are asking all interested parties to refrain from putting Starbucks or our partners into the middle of this divisive issue. As a company, we are extremely sensitive to the issue of gun violence in our society. Our Starbucks family knows all too well the dangers that exist when guns are used irresponsibly and illegally. Without minimizing this unfortunate reality, we believe that supporting local laws is the right way for us to ensure a safe environment for both partners and customers.

I agree. I should be clear we wereÂ not calling for any counter protest of Abby Spangler’s protests earlier. I was just asking people to patronize the local Starbucks, and perhaps express some sentiment that they don’t agree with the spectacle going on outside. No need to bring guns into it.

I don’t demand Starbucks take my side. I just want them to stay out. And staying out will earn our appreciation.

UPDATE: Sad, true, and funny.

Transcript for McDonald

Anyone looking for the transcript for McDonald v. Chicago can find it here. I would have linked this yesterday, but couldn’t stop one place long enough to look for it and link it. I only could work through the iPhone. I managed to get a paper copy yesterday thanks to Chris Cox, fortunately.

DRTV Interview on McDonald Coverage

I gave a call to Michael Bane of Outdoor Channel’s DownRange TV, and spoke with him for a bit about the McDonald case after everyone had come out and we were standing on the steps of the Supreme Court building. At first, I handed over my phone to Dave Hardy, then proceeded to talk to Michael myself. You can hear my interview here. Â Jim Shepherd, who we also saw outside on the steps, gave an interview here.

Looks like DRTV had some pretty good coverage of the case, along with Michael Bane’s blog.

McDonald in Pictures

I’m Uploading Here All My Pictures from the Event, with appropriate labels. Many of them you likely saw in Twitter if you were following my feed, but here they are for those of you who were not following along on Twitter. You can click on the pics to make them bigger, and to see my footnotes.

Main Line on Arrival - McDonald v. Chicago — Main Line on Arrival

Alternate Line McDonald v. Chicago — Alternate Line

Media Setting Up McDonald v. Chicago — Media Setting Up

More Media McDonald v. Chicago — More Media

First Brady Folks - McDonald v. Chicago — First Brady Folks

Paul and Peter Arrive — Paul and Peter of the Brady Campaign Arrive

The Line Grows McDonald v. Chicago — The Line Grows

Protesters on Our Side McDonald v. Chicago — Protesters on Our Side

More Protesters on Our Side McDonald v. Chicago — More Protesters on Our Side

The NRA-ILA Folks McDonald v. Chicago — The NRA-ILA-Folks

Alan Gura and Otis McDonald Get Media Face Time

After the case, we headed to lunch with Sandy Froman and some of the folks from NRA’s General Counsel’s office. Headed over to NRA-ILA’s Federal Affairs office in DC after that just to be able to sit down for a few minutes. We got a chance to chat with Chris Cox and Rachel, our blogger Media Liaison. Then on to the reception where we spoke with some of the ISRA folks, some Calguns Foundation Folks, and Alan Gura.

We got a pretty wide array of gun rights opinion from many different parties. Everyone was very positive about the case, and was in high spirits. I think this was a great day for the Second Amendment, and I am thankful we have so many smart and dedicated practitioners out there fighting for it. Let us hope the outcome is as positive as our moods yesterday.

More McDonald Coverage Coming

In some ways, it was bad for the blog for both Bitter and I to go down, since it’s exceedingly difficult to cover events live with a blog. I’m sure others have better coverage than we do by this point. I noticed some commentary at Volokh here, here, andÂ here. I have thoughts on McDonald I’ll be sharing today, but I have a good bit to get caught up with, and I’m still really drained. Yesterday was a long day, and despite getting up at 4AM, we didn’t get home until 1AM this morning.

I am very glad I went, however, and got to see at least five minutes of history being made before my eyes. I am glad I had the chance to meet with so many of the players in this herculean effort. I even introduced myself to the Brady folks, who were outside the event lining up media interviews for after the case was heard. Paul Helmke was very gracious, and we actually spent about 10 minutes talking with Peter Hamm, who was equally gracious. No reason not to be cordial with the other side, because there is always plenty of room for politics later. This is how our Republic functions, after all.

Seattle Residents: The Starbucks Saga Continues

If you are anywhere near Seattle, you should stop by the flagship Starbucks store around 10:30am and order some food or drink. Then maybe you should let the manager know that you think the people outside are nuts and you hope they don’t get involved in politics with those weird people lying on the ground.

Why are you Seattle folks feeling like a little Starbucks from the original location today around 10:30am? Because Abby Spangler just announced her next lie-in today. She’s outraged that Starbucks has refused to make a political statement on her pet issue. There’s also going to be a Brady press conference, where they will present their petition. So let’s make sure that enough paying customers speak up and just ask that Starbucks stick to coffee and leave the politics to the DC-based groups.

Interestingly, the Brady Campaign doesn’t even care about this enough to bother letting their fans know about it.

Great Day

Looks like the transcript just came out. We’re sitting in a bar under the NRA-ILA Federal Affairs office in DC going over it. Chris Cox was kind enough to offer to print out copies for us, which we gladly accepted.

In a way, you’re all probably more informed than me being here in DC on the ground. Having only handheld PDAs, it’s rough.

Everyone I’ve spoken to is optimistic. While the Court seemed to quickly shut down the Privileges or Immunities route, they absolutely grilled into Feldman, the attorney for Chicago, who seemed to have great difficulty with his argument. I asked Dave Hardy as he came out of the court what he thought, and he said, “I think we have five votes.”

Let us hope. We still have a long road ahead, regardless.

The Big Day

Today is the big day. The day the Supreme Court will hear both sides in whether or not the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment, and also on which clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates those rights. I’m about to head over to the Supreme Court building to try to cover the happenings outside. I will try to provide updates on here, but Twitter is going to be easier for me. At this point, it’s probably too late to get inside to hear oral arguments. Reports are that about 50 people were outside as of about 3AM, and 50 is about the number of seats available. Â The Supreme Court is hearing two cases today, which unfortunately reduces seating capacity for McDonald.