Another interesting read regarding Chicago's brief in Mcdonald V Chicago

[bossy22]

"In the city’s attempt to preserve its weapons ban, it proves too much, essentially urging the Supreme Court to find that protection of the Bill of Rights and other fundamental liberties against state infringement has no basis in constitutional text or history, and is instead achieved solely by judicial implication. To make matters worse, Chicago’s brief makes common cause with precedent that has been properly labeled by civil rights leaders as “among the most misdirected in the history of the Court” and celebrates a post-Civil War Court that looked the other way while Jim Crow perpetuated decades of discrimination and violent rights suppression."

"Chicago’s repeated deference to these decisions of the post-Civil War Court—beyond merely respecting them as precedent, the city’s brief calls them a “venerated” line of decisions—is disconcerting. As the NAACP points out, in the line of cases initiated by Slaughter-House, “the Court enunciated principles far broader than were necessary to decide the matters at hand, and it too readily struck down Congressional legislation designed to combat discrimination against African Americans after the Civil War, including both the Ku Klux Klan’s reign of terror and the establishment of a reconfigured caste system in the form of the Black Codes and Jim Crow.”"








the rest can be read below

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/01/has-chicago-gone-too-far-in-defending.html

[SlipperySlope]

1. I wouldn't want to have been an attorney arguing Chicago's case.

Very difficult position they found themselves in, having to argue against incorporation of what had already been found to be a right in Heller.

[X_Digger]

2. Not to mention the dangerous precedent Chicago's argument would set. n/t