Fmr. Solictor General Paul Clement arguing for NRA in McDonald case. (Vanity)

self | 02/18/2010 | self

[BCR #226]

The NRA has been given 10 minutes to argue before SCOTUS in the land mark McDonald v. Chicago case regarding incorporation of the 2nd Amendment. Most would think this is a grand thing and they would be right except...

The NRA is having Paul Clement, former Solicitor General, argue on their behalf. Why is this an issue? This is the SAME Paul Clement that argued against Allen Gura and Dick Heller three years ago. This is the same man that stated the DC handgun ban "is Constitutional". The NRA has legal minds such as Stephen Halbrooke, who has argued before SCOTUS three times with three successes.

But the NRA has redefined insanity. What they have done is like a holocaust survivor going to see Mengele after the war for a health check up. It makes no sense except that the NRA may want to throw a wrench into the decision to limit the scope of the decision.

I'm asking all of my Freeper friends to contact the NRA and demand that someone such as Stephen Halbrooke be allowed to argue the case instead of our enemy Mr. Clement. Or at least demand an explanation to WHY they are putting this case at risk.

Is this another attempt to derail our rights as they did with the Heller case before it reached SCOTUS????

Please contact the NRA and demand answers. Spread the word to all of your 2nd Amendment friends and have them call!!!! You can contact the NRA via phone at:

NRA Member Programs 1-800-672-3888

[BCR #226]

Please hurry folks, we don't have much time. Thanks!

Mike

[BCR #226]

for the ping lists!!!

[70th Division]

Lawyers are hired guns. He can agrue either side of the case.

[BCR #226]

Given his poor performance in the Heller case, do you want him to argue our side?

[70th Division]

No that is a good point.

[BCR #226]

I can’t comprehend why they would choose him out of all the people out there. It boggles my mind.

[Cathy]

Where was this reported? In other words, how do we know this is true?

[Dead Corpse]

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=5347

It’s real.

[Chet 99]

Maybe Stephen Halbrooke refused to interfere in this case, which is all the NRA is doing.

[The KG9 Kid]

I thought that Clement did fairly well in stating the government’s position in the Heller orals, as much as I disagreed with it. It was Dellinger that got steamrolled into a stuttering mess of an argument. Scalia actually wrote a some of Clement’s lines into the Heller decision, but maybe that’s because he wanted to credit his former law clerk with an acknowledgment.

[The KG9 Kid]

You do know that Clement is basically a younger Scalia who was forced to argue the government's position in Silviera vs. Lockyer against a really horrifyingly bad lawyer that the pro-gun side produced? Clement mopped the floor with Gorski's law degree. You can blame the pro-gun amateurs who challenged Roberti-Roos and didn't have their shit together for that loss.

Clement's presence in Heller was sent down by the Justice Department to make sure that Kennedy stayed in the majority.

I think that Clement is a formidable choice now that he works for the NRA.

[neverdem]

U.S. Supreme Court Grants NRA Motion For Divided Argument In McDonald v. City of Chicago

Here's their rationale:

Former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement will be representing NRA at oral argument, which will occur on March 2. The NRA chose Solicitor General Clement for oral argument in this case because he is one of the leading Supreme Court advocates of our time and has argued dozens of cases before the Court. In the case at hand, he has already represented 251 members of the U.S. House of Representatives and 58 U.S. Senators in filing an historic and very important friend of the court brief, which makes a strong and effective case in favor of incorporation. Now that he is representing the NRA, he will just as strongly represent the interests of NRA members and all other Americans who believe the Second Amendment should apply equally throughout our nation. (A link to the congressional brief can be found here: http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/litigation/mcdonald_ac_congress..pdf)

During oral argument, Solicitor General Clement will ensure that the Court hears all the arguments for applying the Second Amendment to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court could reach that result either through the Privileges or Immunities Clause (as the plaintiffs in the case have emphasized), or through the Due Process Clause (as the Supreme Court has chosen to apply nearly all of the other provisions of the Bill of Rights). The NRA’s solitary goal in this case is to ensure that the Supreme Court applies the Second Amendment to all Americans throughout the country, no matter which method the Court chooses to use.

As a party to the case, NRA also had the opportunity to file a reply brief to Chicago’s arguments. That effort was led by Stephen Poss and Kevin Martin of the firm Goodwin Procter, along with Stephen Halbrook and Solicitor General Clement. A link to the NRA’s reply brief, which was filed today, can be found here.

Somehow, I thought this was posted already. IMHO, I think the NRA wants to win with McDonald, and not have to fall back on their own petition or the Maloney case which have also been granted cert and are pending if McDonald should fail to incorporate the Second Amendment.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Condor51]

Whoa. Keep yer powder dry guys. The NRA isn't the lead Plaintiff, McDonald still is.

So Clement (Counsel for Amici Curiae) gets 10 minutes to argue the amicus brief below₍₁₎ some in Congress filed, and also for the one the NRA filed separately₍₂₎, that is all.

McDonald's attorney, Gura from Heller, is still the main guy who'll be in front of SCOTUS for mcDonald. And Clement will be arguing what's already been filed. Read them, he has solid legal footing.

And maybe one reason the NRA hired him is because those Congress-criterrs already did? And lawyers always 'go both ways', not unusual at all. Ted Olson does it constantly.

(1) BRIEF FOR AMICI CURIAE 59 pages (NOTE PDF)
(2) NRA brief 36 pages (PDF)

[BCR #226]

I pray that you are right.

[ExSoldier]

When I was on my high school debate team, my coach routinely made me argue the side I passionately disagreed with. It's easy to push that which you favor. It is the definition of any successful attorney to be able to argue both sides with equal passion. That is literally their bread and butter. If he succeeds here, he'll be a multi-million dollar draw to anybody with any beef to push at the court. Nobody will care which side he's on personally. It just won't matter. jurisprudence Heaven for any attorney.

[Joe Brower]

[neverdem]

If he succeeds here...

If Clement helps to succeed here, then consider him for a consolidated case from the states and businesses taking EPA to task on their CO2 endangerment finding at SCOTUS.

[ExSoldier]

If Clement helps to succeed here, then consider him for a consolidated case from the states and businesses taking EPA to task on their CO2 endangerment finding at SCOTUS.

And BINGO!

[Blood of Tyrants]

My thinking, too. A good lawyer will effectively argue the case they are paid for.