|
|
|
alter E. Dellinger ... may it please the court.
Without question.
------------------------
"An Old Hand At Court Gears Up for Battle"
By David Nakamura
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 18, 2008; B01
Here's how veteran Supreme Court advocate Walter E. Dellinger gets
ready for a big case:
Three dozen lawyers are waiting for him in a conference room, but
Dellinger isn't in a hurry. In his 11th-floor office at O'Melveny &
Myers, he meticulously cuts up his notes and tapes key sections into a
manila folder. As he works, he grabs a black iPod, punches up
"Ophelia," a 1970s rock song by the Band, and sings along: "Mama, you
know we broke the rules!"
"How could this not put you in a good mood?" Dellinger, 66, exclaims,
then dons a patterned tie with his navy suit and troops down the hall
to meet his colleagues. Taking his position at a lectern, he's ready
to go. He opens his folder.
"May it please the court . . . "
Dellinger and the District government's massive legal team were
beginning their final practice session before today's historic appeal
to the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the city's 32-year ban on
handguns. Their planning has been exhaustive: a year of work, a 15,000-
word brief, countless pro bono hours.
Now the city's fate in the District of Columbia v. Heller rests in the
hands of Dellinger, a garrulous former acting U.S. solicitor general
who will have 30 minutes to explain to the nine justices why the
District's gun ban is not inconsistent with the Second Amendment. The
court has not ruled on the right to bear arms since 1939, and the case
has drawn national interest as a constitutional bellwether that could
affect gun control laws across the country.
A longtime constitutional law professor at Duke University, Dellinger
is known as a folksy, liberal-leaning academic who would love to
engage in a lofty philosophical debate over what the framers meant: Is
the right to bear arms reserved for individuals or just a "well
regulated" militia? But he knows the case could be won on a more
prosaic point. One of the city's three arguments is that its law,
which allows shotguns, is reasonable no matter how the justices feel
on the first question.
"What I don't want to happen is for someone to say, 'The best
historical argument ever offered to the court was Walter Dellinger's
losing argument,' " said Dellinger, who has a 13-5 record in cases
before the high court. "The academic and constitutional debate is
fine, but our job is not to win a historical debate. It is to get our
client's law upheld."
Dellinger, who had been advising on the case since city officials
appealed a lower court's overturning of the gun ban last year, did not
know until January that he would be making oral arguments. He was not
sure he even wanted the job when Interim D.C. Attorney General Peter
Nickles fired the city's lead lawyer, Alan B. Morrison, in an
unrelated dispute, and asked Dellinger to step in. Dellinger was
already juggling two other Supreme Court cases, including representing
Exxon's bid to reduce punitive damages for the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil
spill.
But if anyone can rise to the challenge, friends and colleagues said,
it is Dellinger, who got his first job as a high court advocate in
1989 after bluffing through an interview.
"He's very engaging and a lively advocate," said Richard Lazarus, a
Georgetown University law professor. "He's more expansive in his
arguments, because as an academic, he tends to see the big picture."
On a recent Saturday, Dellinger, in an oversize blue cable-knit
sweater, khakis and old tennis shoes, was in his office researching
trigger locks. Two thick blue binders titled "D.C. v. Heller" rested
on a desk, along with copies of "A Well Regulated Militia" by Saul
Cornell and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's "A Matter of
Interpretation."
Dellinger's wife, Anne, a former University of North Carolina law
professor who splits time between Chapel Hill, N.C., and Washington,
was in town. She was dressed in overalls and stretched out on the
couch in her husband's office reading an abortion-rights book. It was
the only way she was going to spend much time with him.
Dellinger argued nine cases as acting solicitor general, the officer
who represents the government in Supreme Court cases, from 1996 to
1997 in the Clinton administration. But recent weeks have been more
intense. "I don't remember having to work quite this hard for this
period of time," he said. "Nine cases in nine months is not three in
four weeks."
He has done crash reading. He has interviewed D.C. police officers to
learn how the gun law plays on the streets. And last week he held
three practice sessions, including one at Harvard University.
Thomas C. Goldstein, an experienced Supreme Court advocate from Akin
Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld who is assisting the District, said
Morrison, who was responsible for most of the court brief, was more
versed in the case. But Morrison was "so deep into it that he was very
committed to a particular strategy," Goldstein said. "Walter is more
willing to compromise and go where the justices go. He's more
flexible."
Dellinger would have been content with a career in academia. But in
1989, after speaking at a conference, he was approached by the
Virginia Hospital Association, which was seeking an advocate in its
Supreme Court fight against the state for more Medicaid funding.
Dellinger was asked to interview the next day. So he pulled an all-
nighter, studying in the Duke faculty lounge, and made up for what he
didn't know by bluffing. He got the gig -- and later won the case.
Dellinger's public profile soared. In 1993, he was tapped by President
Bill Clinton to be an assistant attorney general under Janet Reno.
Dellinger's personable, persuasive style was apparent from the start.
At a Justice Department party, he persuaded Reno to dance with him to
"Mustang Sally," a moment later parodied on "Saturday Night Live."
He grew up in Chapel Hill with two sisters and a mother who sold men's
clothing accessories. His father died when he was 12, and he figures
that had something to do with the fact that he never owned a gun like
some peers. "No one took me hunting or fishing," he said.
He graduated from the University of North Carolina, where he met Anne,
and then Yale Law School. During more than 20 years at Duke, Dellinger
became a nationally renowned constitutional expert who testified
before Congress on abortion rights and against school prayer.
He rides a beat-up road bike around town and talks slowly, a Tar Heel
inflection still in his voice.
Carter G. Phillips, a lawyer friend from Sidley & Austin, said
Dellinger can be too folksy. As a professor, Phillips said, Dellinger
had an hour to take his class through a narrative journey. In the
Supreme Court, there is no such luxury.
"You better figure out what's the five-word answer, not the 105-word
answer," Phillips said. "Walter struggles with that."
After Dellinger was promoted to acting solicitor general in 1996, Sen.
Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) blocked his confirmation for the full-time job.
Dellinger blames it on his support of former governor James Hunt's
failed bid to unseat Helms in 1984.
"It was purely political," said Rep. David E. Price (D-N.C.), a
college classmate. Dellinger is "not a guy who's going to try to act
on personal o
|
| |
| |
The "MILITIA" votes have it!
|
| |
| |
In article
<7abffe95-2359-430e-905b-a1f748fe0cae@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
James Fenimore <slipuvalad@yahoo.com> wrote:
A longtime constitutional law professor at Duke University, Dellinger
is known as a folksy, liberal-leaning academic who would love to
engage in a lofty philosophical debate over what the framers meant: Is
the right to bear arms reserved for individuals or just a "well
regulated" militia? But he knows the case could be won on a more
prosaic point. One of the city's three arguments is that its law,
which allows shotguns, is reasonable no matter how the justices feel
on the first question.
How ridiculous is that position? The District is asserting that even if
the Supreme Court finds that individuals have a guaranteed right to own
a pistol, it's still reasonable for the District to ban pistol ownership.
What's next? "Yes, your honor, we agree the Constitution protects the
right of free speech, but it's still reasonable for us to ban all
protests and censor the media."
He graduated from the University of North Carolina, where he met Anne,
and then Yale Law School. During more than 20 years at Duke, Dellinger
became a nationally renowned constitutional expert who testified
before Congress on abortion rights and against school prayer.
He rides a beat-up road bike around town and talks slowly, a Tar Heel
inflection still in his voice.
Notice how no one is doing folksy media bios of the lawyers on the other
side of this case. Wonder why...
|
| |
| |
Thanatos <atropos@mac.com> wrote in
news:atropos-AD7013.16542218032008@news.giganews.com:
In article
<7abffe95-2359-430e-905b-a1f748fe0cae@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
James Fenimore <slipuvalad@yahoo.com> wrote:
How ridiculous is that position? The District is asserting that even
if the Supreme Court finds that individuals have a guaranteed right to
own a pistol, it's still reasonable for the District to ban pistol
ownership.
What's ridiculous is your attribution of *your* argument to DC. No
doubt DC means that even if the Supremes find an individual right to own
arms, DC's law is a reasonable restriction on that right. DC may be
right or wrong, but they're not ridiculous to argue that restrictions
may still exist.
What's next? "Yes, your honor, we agree the Constitution protects the
right of free speech, but it's still reasonable for us to ban all
protests and censor the media."
No, the analogy would be "We agree the Constitution protects the
right of free speech, but it's still reasonable for us to ban contract
murder."
<snip>
|
| |
| |
Thanatos <atropos@mac.com> wrote in
news:atropos-AD7013.16542218032008@news.giganews.com:
What's ridiculous is your attribution of *your* argument to DC. No
doubt DC means that even if the Supremes find an individual right to own
arms, DC's law is a reasonable restriction on that right. DC may be
right or wrong, but they're not ridiculous to argue that restrictions
may still exist.
No, the analogy would be "We agree the Constitution protects the
right of free speech, but it's still reasonable for us to ban contract
murder."
Speaking and doing are different things.
<snip>
|
| |
| |
"GeekBoy" <abuse@zedz.net> wrote in news:47e04342$0$30705
$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
Speaking and doing are different things.
Thanks for sharing. Contracting for murder isn't murder; it's speech.
And it's still illegal.
Or is there something else about the analogy you don't understand?
<snip>
|
| |
| |
"GeekBoy" <abuse@zedz.net> wrote in news:47e04342$0$30705
$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
Thanks for sharing. Contracting for murder isn't murder; it's speech.
And it's still illegal.
Or is there something else about the analogy you don't understand?
No, you don't
Speaking about it is not illegal.
<snip>
|
| |
| |
In article <47e052ae$0$30680$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"GeekBoy" <abuse@zedz.net> wrote:
No, you don't
Speaking about it is not illegal.
It is if the speech forms a contract to commit a murder. Like Deadrat
said.
|
| |
| |
In article <47e052ae$0$30680$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "GeekBoy" <abuse@zedz.net> wrote: It is if the speech forms a contract to commit a murder. Like Deadrat said.
Doing and talking are not the same...that is what he is not getting.
|
| |
| |
Thanatos <atropos@mac.com> wrote in
news:atropos-AD7013.16542218032008@news.giganews.com:
What's ridiculous is your attribution of *your* argument to DC. No
doubt DC means that even if the Supremes find an individual right to own
arms, DC's law is a reasonable restriction on that right. DC may be
right or wrong, but they're not ridiculous to argue that restrictions
may still exist.
DC does not regulate handguns, it bans them. The DC law is not reasonable
|
| |
| |
"GeekBoy" <abuse@zedz.net> wrote in
news:47e07264$0$16654$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
Yes, but just talking about contracting for murder is not.
Doing and talking are not the same...that is what he is not getting.
Talking about contracting for murder, say in the sense of reporting on
the history of organized crime hits, is certainly legal. Arranging for a
murder is not, even if the arrangements are spoken and no money has yet
changed hands.
There are many other examples. Assault (making someone afraid for his
life or safety) is illegal and you can do that with words alone.
Incitement to riot is also illegal.
Some speech is considered action and it may be criminalized. These laws
are restrictions on speech in spite of the wording of the First
Amendment.
Thus the analogy.
|
| |
| |
Deadrat wrote:
"GeekBoy" <abuse@zedz.net> wrote in
news:47e07264$0$16654$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
Talking about contracting for murder, say in the sense of reporting on
the history of organized crime hits, is certainly legal. Arranging
for a murder is not, even if the arrangements are spoken and no money
has yet changed hands.
There are many other examples. Assault (making someone afraid for his
life or safety) is illegal and you can do that with words alone.
Incitement to riot is also illegal.
Some speech is considered action and it may be criminalized. These
laws are restrictions on speech in spite of the wording of the First
Amendment.
Thus the analogy.
GeekBoi is an idiot ... and a white-trash racist chickenhawk coward.
|
| |
| |
Steve wrote:
DC does not regulate handguns, it bans them. The DC law is not
reasonable
There's a reason for it ... therefore it's reasonable. Ipso facto.
|
| |
| |
Steve wrote:
There's a reason for it ... therefore it's reasonable. Ipso facto.
Thus we see that when asked why we oppose "reasonable" gun control....Jonez
has provided the answer.
|
| |
| |
In article <64g3fnF2b47djU1@mid.individual.net>,
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote:
Steve wrote:
There's a reason for it ... therefore it's reasonable.
Only to a drooling idiot.
|
| |
| |
In article <64g3fnF2b47djU1@mid.individual.net>,
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote:
Steve wrote:
|
| |
| |
In article <64g3fnF2b47djU1@mid.individual.net>,
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote:
|
| |
| |
In article <64gitdF2bq9rhU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Reality_Check" <Reality@Check.it> wrote:
|
| |
| |
"Reality_Check" <Reality@Check.it> wrote in
news:64gitdF2bq9rhU1@mid.individual.net:
|
| |
| |
"Reality_Check" <Reality@Check.it> wrote in
news:64gitdF2bq9rhU1@mid.individual.net:
|
| |
| |
In article <Xns9A68A0AD3C111deepsea01yahoocom@216.196.97.136>,
DeepSea <deep_sea01@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Reality_Check" <Reality@Check.it> wrote in
news:64gitdF2bq9rhU1@mid.individual.net:
"Thanatos" <atropos@mac.com> wrote in message
That would be analogous to saying that there's a right to
freedom of religion but it's reasonable to lock anyone up
who attempts to go to church.
Your lame attempt at analogy is as pathetic as your ability
to stay on point.
Could you help me out on this one? Please explain why this is
a lame analogy.
It's not. The analogy is directly on point to anyone with a shred of
reason. It's just this person's "style" to make claims like that, call
people liars and whatnot, while not offering a single shred of evidence
or argument to back itself up. It never contributes a single useful
thing to any discussion other than insults and when caught out on
anything either immediately disappears or just keeps saying "you're
lying" over and over again.
|
| |
| |
DeepSea wrote:
"Reality_Check" <Reality@Check.it> wrote in
|
| |
| |
In article <64itneF2b9sfqU1@mid.individual.net>,
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote:
DeepSea wrote:
|
| |
| |
In article <Xns9A68A0AD3C111deepsea01yahoocom@216.196.97.136>, DeepSea <deep_sea01@yahoo.com> wrote: "Thanatos" <atropos@mac.com> wrote in message That would be analogous to saying that there's a right to freedom of religion but it's reasonable to lock anyone up who attempts to go to church. Your lame attempt at analogy is as pathetic as your ability to stay on point. It's not. The analogy is directly on point to anyone with a shred of reason.
a handgun and any firearm.
|
| |
| |
Thanatos <atropos@mac.com> wrote in news:atropos-235FFE.22564621032008
@news.giganews.com:
In article <64itneF2b9sfqU1@mid.individual.net>,
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote:
|
| |
| |
On Mar 18, 9:13=A0am, James Fenimore <slipuva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Walter E. Dellinger ... may it please the court.
[...]
This guy may be a winner, but he's gonna lose this one.
|
| |
| |
Only to a jackass like you who can't tell the difference between
a handgun and any firearm.
And this comment is just a non sequitur because the situation is entirely
understandable through logic and reasoning even if you don't know
the difference between one firearm and another.
|
| |
| |
On Mar 20, 4:31=A0pm, "_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@jonez.net> wrote:
Steve wrote:
There's a reason for it ... therefore it's reasonable. Ipso facto.- Hide q=
uoted text -
Not when this is a consitutional right. Having a "reason" to deny
people their constitutional rights cannot be good enough, else rights
would be meaningless.
The reason for the restruction must be specific to specific
individuals and/or specific cases. Like no one but duly appointed
ballifs and the judge(s) may be armed in court. Or persons who have
been convicted of a violent felony may posess arms. To prevent a
private citizen from posession of arms on his private property is
totally unreasonable in view of the right to bear arms being a
protected constitutional right.
|
| |
| |
In article <47e4bf3a$3$30686$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"Herb Martin" <news@learnquick.com> wrote:
|
| |
| |
"Herb Martin" <news@learnquick.com> wrote in
news:47e4bf3a$3$30686$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
|
| |
| |
Al Montestruc <montestruc@gmail.com> wrote in
news:35a643e1-520a-43ea-9999-dbe8a7c109f0@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
On Mar 20, 4:31pm, "_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@jonez.net> wrote:
uoted text -
Not when this is a consitutional right. Having a "reason" to deny
people their constitutional rights cannot be good enough, else rights
would be meaningless.
The reason for the restruction must be specific to specific
individuals and/or specific cases. Like no one but duly appointed
ballifs and the judge(s) may be armed in court. Or persons who have
been convicted of a violent felony may posess arms. To prevent a
private citizen from posession of arms on his private property is
totally unreasonable in view of the right to bear arms being a
protected constitutional right.
That's pretty much the point of the suit -- is the right to bear arms an
individual right?
|
| |
| |
In article <RyaFj.35247$J41.28626@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>,
Deadrat <a@b.com> wrote:
While we're noting things, let's note that cops,
not the most liberal constituency, are big gun-control
advocates.
No, they're not. The political cops advocate gun control (chiefs, union
bosses, etc.) and claim to speak for all cops but in reality the rank
and file cops are big supporters of the 2nd Amendment.
I'm one and I'm sure not a fan of gun control laws and neither are any
of my co-workers.
|
| |
| |
In article <iAaFj.35248$J41.27734@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>,
Deadrat <a@b.com> wrote:
Al Montestruc <montestruc@gmail.com> wrote in
The reason for the restruction must be specific to specific
individuals and/or specific cases. Like no one but duly appointed
ballifs and the judge(s) may be armed in court. Or persons who have
been convicted of a violent felony may posess arms. To prevent a
private citizen from posession of arms on his private property is
totally unreasonable in view of the right to bear arms being a
protected constitutional right.
That's pretty much the point of the suit -- is the right to
bear arms an individual right?
But the District is taking the argument a step further. They're saying
that even if the Supreme Court finds that there is an individual right,
their law banning all handguns and requiring all long guns be maintained
in an inoperative state should still be upheld because it's a reasonable
restriction on that right.
They're basically arguing that it's permissible to regulate and restrict
a fundamental right to the point where it's meaningless, so long as the
government labels it "reasonable".
|
| |
| |
Thanatos <atropos@mac.com> wrote in news:atropos-EA9B06.13591622032008
@news.giganews.com:
In article <RyaFj.35247$J41.28626@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>, Deadrat <a@b.com> wrote: No, they're not.
The political cops advocate gun control (chiefs, union
bosses, etc.) and claim to speak for all cops but in reality the rank
and file cops are big supporters of the 2nd Amendment.
So you say. I don't have any reliable poll results, so I'll retreat to a
position of agnosticism.
I'm one and I'm sure not a fan of gun control laws and neither are any
of my co-workers.
<shrug>
Anyone can play Starsky or Hutch in cyberspace.
</shrug>
|
| |
| |
In article <47e4bf3a$3$30686$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"Herb Martin" <news@learnquick.com> wrote:
|
| |
| |
"Herb Martin" <news@learnquick.com> wrote in
news:47e4bf3a$3$30686$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
|
| |
| |
_ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
Steve wrote:
There's a reason for it ... therefore it's reasonable. Ipso facto.
If someone blows your ignorant, gullible head off, it would be legal
because their are plenty of reasons for it.
|
| |
