Well, when you are going to the SCOTUS on a Con Law question, and you can't/won't get Ken Starr, you might as well hire a former SG.

Oops! I forgot.

Ken Starr *was* an SG.

I guess The DC city government's legendary incompetence was good for something after all.

Wow...I think that is the legal analog to the b*tch slap!

Seriously though I just finished re-reading Silbermann's ruling and I gotta say, you'd have to be brain dead to deny it.

That was an awesome response. I laughed many times.

"I guess The DC city government's legendary incompetence was good for something after all."

God, I nearly fell off my chair laughing when I read that comment!

The one thing that is evident from reading that petition and the response is just how completely outclassed the DC attorneys are in this case.

Also, the response answered a question I had. It was not altogether clear, at least to me, if plaintiffs would support a request for cert or not. They had won for their clients so I was thinking they might be obligated to stop there. I's glad they are supporting it though. I think our side will win.

The DC attorneys won't be outclassed for long. They'll get all kinds of help from their left-wing gun-banning friends.

Why did you believe the plaintiffs might not support cert? I thought the entire reason raison d'etre of this case was Supreme Court review.

I read the petitions to extend time. I am not a lawyer but I don't think it is going to be granted. I then I think the District feels that they can drop the appeal without incurring the ire of Judge Silberman.

Good point Vinnie.

That may have been the face-saving ruse (for DC) all along.

I'm not a lawyer. Can SCOTUS deny the extension but still grant cert, given the papers that have been filed thus far?

I'm disappointed in Dellinger. He was a lib in law school but a decent and smart guy. Law professors across the spectrum recognize the RKBA as an individual right. I can't wait for Scalia to ask Dellinger, "so, the right to bear arms, which is enumerated in the BOR, can be infringed, but the right to an abortion on demand, which is not, cannot?"

It's up to C.J. Roberts whether they get the extension--he's Circuit Justice for the DC Circuit. No idea how he'll rule. If it were Scalia, it would be denied--he hardly ever grants them. If it were Kennedy or someone else, and they had a good excuse--maybe. The fact that it's a governmental party means they're more likely to get some slack.

"Why did you believe the plaintiffs might not support cert? I thought the entire reason raison d'etre of this case was Supreme Court review."

Ultimately, an attorney's first obligation is to their clients. In this case, they took home all the marbles for their clients to play with. At this point, there is nothing for the plaintiff's to gain further at SCOTUS, and everything to lose.

Of course, in this case, I expect the clients are very much in support of getting cert.

SCOTUS can grant cert without a cert petition being filed, but that will not happen.

DC got the extension it requested:

Link

Looks like Roberts ruled before even getting the opposition.

As I remember the case, there were half a dozen plaintiffs, but 5 were denied relief on standing grounds. The 3-judge appellate panel admitted that the DC Circuit's view on standing was contrary to recent rulings from the Supreme Court, but they didn't want to overturn a Circuit rule on their own. They seemed to invite full-court review of the case for this issue, but of course that didn't happen.

So only one of the plaintiffs actually received relief in the appellate opinion, although the ruling may have effectively given the other 5 plaintiffs relief as well. But if any of the plaintiffs didn't get the relief they sought initially, I should think they would be looking for cert in hopes the Supremes would extend the ruling to them.

Is it possible that the Supremes might be interested in taking the case just for the standing issue? As I recall the opinion, the DC Circuit apparently holds to an older position that you can't challenge a criminal law unless you have actually been prosecuted under it (none of the Parker plaintiffs had been,) while the Supreme Court has decided that a substantial threat of prosecution (which the plaintiffs in Parker demonstrated) is enough to give you standing. Would it be possible for the Supremes to take the case, and decide only the standing issue (which presumably would give all of the plaintiffs relief within DC), but do nothing to resolve the split in the circuits?