The High Court is making some pretty popular decisions these days

[jnrjr79]

What do you think the odds are that they had an advance copy of the ruling to use in preparing their suit. It's not unheard of as we have gotten advance rulings ahead of our opponants some times and sometimes they have the advance rulign and use them to prepare arguments in cases similar to ours.

 

 

The chances are 0 they had an advance copy, but they certainly already had their complaint drafted (and likely multiple versions depending on different contingencies) for some time. There were only so many was the SCOTUS could go, so it was fairly predictable that 1 of 2 outcomes would result. Also, they would have had access to the briefs and transcripts of the oral argument, so unless the court brought up issues on their own outside the record, they knew where the decision would turn.

[cryptique]

Salon.com makes an interesting point that this SCOTUS decision basically robs the GOP of one of their standard election-year scare tactics: claiming that the Democratic nominee wants to take everyone's guns away.

 

The headline for their piece: Supreme Court gun ruling could backfire

[uncool2pillow]

Salon.com makes an interesting point that this SCOTUS decision basically robs the GOP of one of their standard election-year scare tactics: claiming that the Democratic nominee wants to take everyone's guns away.

 

The headline for their piece: Supreme Court gun ruling could backfire

I think the segment of the population that votes on SCOTUS issues (abortion, guns, gay marriage, etc.) will almost always vote for their party of choice because many either don't understand precedent and the principle of stare decisis or don't trust the court to respect it. Those who want their guns will still vote Republican, those who want to take them away will still vote Democrat.

[cryptique]

In general I would agree, but this does seem to deprive the GOP of a major talking point, and could make it difficult to energize a portion of their base.

[uncle wilco]

In general I would agree, but this does seem to deprive the GOP of a major talking point, and could make it difficult to energize a portion of their base.

i'm thinking there are alot of other reasons for the GOP to energize their base...starting with the likelyhood of an obama presidency. his "obamaness" isn't much admired among repubs regardless of how much mccain is loathed within his own party. 4 years of mclame is still more acceptable and recoverable from than an obama administration. the GOP and independent conservatives also see mccain as a one term prez and should be better prepared for a successful run in 2012 with a more acceptable candidate. at least they better be.

 

hopefully the dems will figure the repubs have already thrown in the towel, causing dems not show up at the polls in sufficient numbers in november.

[cryptique]

the GOP and independent conservatives also see mccain as a one term prez and should be better prepared for a successful run in 2012 with a more acceptable candidate.

Really? If McCain wins, you think the GOP would try to sabotage him in 2012? Or do you think McCain would decline to seek re-election?

[uncle wilco]

Really? If McCain wins, you think the GOP would try to sabotage him in 2012? Or do you think McCain would decline to seek re-election?

i don't see him running again and he's hinted at going for just one term as well. but, you never know.

 

thing is, mccain was not the choice of many in the GOP and he would be a prime candidate to be challenged within his own party if he chose to continue. not to bring age into it, but the man would be 72 entering his first term and 76 entering a second. seems hard to imagine he'd want to continue.

[IATTBYB]