[robertpaulsen]

"The Supreme Court can of course ignore the Bush administration’s advice ..."

BWAHAHAHAHA!

Yes, John R. Lott Jr., they can. But if the brief had been favorable, you would have written, "The Supreme Court can hardly ignore the Bush administration’s advice ..."

[neverdem]

BWAHAHAHAHA!

Yes, John R. Lott Jr., they can. But if the brief had been favorable, you would have written, "The Supreme Court can hardly ignore the Bush administration’s advice ..."

The court said yesterday it will limit its ruling to one question: whether D.C. laws "violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes."

I wouldn't gloat too hard.

[JohnRLott]

"The Supreme Court can of course ignore the Bush administration’s advice ..." BWAHAHAHAHA! Yes, John R. Lott Jr., they can. But if the brief had been favorable, you would have written, "The Supreme Court can hardly ignore the Bush administration’s advice ..." Ugh? I don't think that you are very familiar with my writings.