TexasCHLforum.com

I believe the term for the supporting briefs that Kalrog mentioned is "amicus curiae" (sp?), Latin for "friend of the court".

Kalrog wrote:The NRA is not directly involved in this case - there is nothing due from them at all. What quite often happens though is that people who support one side or the other will submit "supporting" briefs for their side in addition to what the lawyers for the case submit. And they might even offer pro-bono assistance (all of the outside firms for DC are doing that in this case according to what I have read) on the lawyer's brief.

This is Heller (Gura) and DC case. NOT an NRA case. But Charles can attest that the NRA is helping.

What I'm curious about is the timeframe etc. of when our round of briefs is due. If everyone is throwing their briefs into a pile (so to speak) Are the Brady's filing briefs, and have they tossed any into this pile? Is the DC brief filed this week the only ones actually filed so far?

Liberty wrote:What I'm curious about is the timeframe etc. of when our round of briefs is due. If everyone is throwing their briefs into a pile (so to speak) Are the Brady's filing briefs, and have they tossed any into this pile? Is the DC brief filed this week the only ones actually filed so far?

I have just done some looking and I can't find the answer to that question yet. But the assumption is that arguments will happen early spring so I would expect another week or two - so mid January for respondent brief to be due.

Kalrog wrote:

Liberty wrote:What I'm curious about is the timeframe etc. of when our round of briefs is due. If everyone is throwing their briefs into a pile (so to speak) Are the Brady's filing briefs, and have they tossed any into this pile? Is the DC brief filed this week the only ones actually filed so far?

I have just done some looking and I can't find the answer to that question yet. But the assumption is that arguments will happen early spring so I would expect another week or two - so mid January for respondent brief to be due.

Civil cases are REALLY convoluted. Regardless of plaintiff or defendant in the original case, the party appealing a decision must submit their cause to appeal first. They can be thought of as a plaintiff in a new case against not only the other party, but the lower court. Their aim is to nullify the lower court's actions and must argue that the action is wrong because of an error in jurisprudence made by the lower court that influenced its decision. Just like a criminal trial the facts presented in evidence are no longer in question. The appeal is not an opportunity to re-try the original case with the same evidence in front of the appelate court in hopes of a different decision; it must be a request for dismissal of the lower court's decision based on an error in procedure or logic that resulted in a fallacious ruling.

The opposing party, regardless of their original status as plaintiff or defendant, then responds. From that point, amicus curiae (friends of the court) may file briefs to support or refute arguments, or even introduce new sides of the question, AS LONG AS THE BRIEFS REMAIN FOCUSED ON THE POINT OF LAW IN QUESTION. Amicus briefs may be solicited by the court or offered without request, but it's established legal doctrine that all interested parties on both sides or in the middle are entitled to express their viewpoint in such matters of law.

As far as exactly when everything is done, the SCOTUS establishes the schedule and deadlines for the various types of briefs. They have to allow all parties time to review the briefs already filed, but when SCOTUS grants certiorari the justices generally want to keep the docket moving.

Liberty wrote: I don't even know what purpose of these briefs are.

I'm not sure this part of your comment actually got answered. As I understand the amici curiae briefs, they are supposed to focus on facets of the law in question that have NOT been brought up by the primary litigants. In other words, the court does not want to hear the same arguments repeated by everybody and their brother, but they do want to hear about any argument or effects that have not been covered by, in this case, Heller/Parker and the City of D.C.

elb

Looks like CONGRESS might file an amicus brief. At least that is the headline. Check farther and you realize it is only 2 members, but still.

http://ca.us.biz.yahoo.com/bw/080110/20 ... .html?.v=1

I think we might need to have some pro 2A congress file a brief on the other side.

Two senior Members of Congress, Representatives Chaka Fattah (D-PA), and John Conyers, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, will be joined by more than a dozen of their colleagues in filing an amicus brief in District of Columbia v. Heller.

You might figure those two clowns would be involved.

Congressman Fattah said, “Last year, 8,000 Americans were killed by handguns........

Well, arrest those guns immediately and take them into custody!

More from the clown Fatah....

The Supreme Court must uphold the District of Columbia’s right to make policy decisions that will ensure the safety of all its citizens.�

Yo, Chaka. Governments don't have rights. They have powers. As a government official yourself, one might expect you to know the difference.

Attorney Scott Gant, of the law firm Boies, Schiller and Flexner LLP, a litigation powerhouse, is filing the brief on behalf of Congressman Fattah

"Boies, Schiller and Flexner LLP". Where have I heard that name before? Anybody? How about the dweeb who argued Al Gore's case before the Supreme Court back in 2000? David Boies. Could it be him?

I'll bet it is.

Ha..ha..ha..ha...........

Kalrog wrote:Looks like CONGRESS might file an amicus brief. At least that is the headline. Check farther and you realize it is only 2 members, but still.

http://ca.us.biz.yahoo.com/bw/080110/20 ... .html?.v=1

I think we might need to have some pro 2A congress file a brief on the other side.

And now the other side has done it.

http://jones.house.gov/release.cfm?id=608

Kalrog wrote:

Kalrog wrote:Looks like CONGRESS might file an amicus brief. At least that is the headline. Check farther and you realize it is only 2 members, but still.

http://ca.us.biz.yahoo.com/bw/080110/20 ... .html?.v=1

I think we might need to have some pro 2A congress file a brief on the other side.

And now the other side has done it.

http://jones.house.gov/release.cfm?id=608

Outstanding!