Heller Line Update:
I predicted last week that the oral argument line for DC v. Heller would fill up very early, perhaps earlier than any case in Supreme Court history. Jan Crawford Greenburg reports that the line started this afternoon at 5:35 pm -- about 40 hours before the argument. (Thanks to Howard for the link.)
Related Posts (on one page):
Did these guys think that the Supreme Court would hand out Harry Potter books at midnight? Jimmy Buffett tickets?
Oh, to be young again.
It is not true, as clueless Greenburg claims, that "The justices literally will be writing on a blank slate."
For the record: the Second Amendment consists of actual words with real meanings; it is not a blank slate.
And let's not even talk about her use of the word "literally" here.
I think you are missing the difference between making a normative claim and a descriptive claim -- the former being what you think ought to be, the latter being what actually is. Greenburg is a reporter, and she was plainly making a descriptive claim; it seems pretty "clueless" to respond with a normative one.
Thermos?
From experience, you just get the person behind you to agree to let you back in while you rush to the facilities. There's a general sort of civility among line standers.
Of primary importance would be to ask each if they generally support Respondent (Heller) or Petitioner (DC). Note sex, age, ethnicity, state of origin, etc. Get creative. This will only happen once, so make it a good and useful data gathering. It also might be interesting to compile audio or written comments based on the question "What does the second amendment mean to you?"
I predict that of those waiting in line, you will get 85-90% that support Heller. But regardless the outcome, these would be important numbers to take away from this "phenomenon."
Can someone explain to me why someone would carry water around in a plastic bag? Seems a bit odd to drink from a Ziploc or something when there are things called bottles.
The people standing in line for themselves, I've no problem with. But it would be nice if the police began saying, "No. You weren't in line. You don't get in. No trading places."
I'd imagine you'd want to be wearing a suit or that the Court would at least have some kind of dress code. I know I start looking very disheveled after 18 hours or so. I couldn't see myself standing in line and managing to look presentable.
I don't know about you, but I'm going to wait until we we can chalk up the win before I throw any parties.
Well, it's St. Pattie's day, so I would assume that line's pretty long.
ONLY?!?!?
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.