Strategy

I was looking at this SCOTUS blog piece (courtesy of SayUncle), and a couple of thoughts popped into my BHG (brain housing group):

The NRA maneuver brings further out into the open the strategic differences in pursuing the two alternative arguments..

And it occurred to me ...... why must our rights as citizens be subject to strategy?

This maneuver is a request by the NRA to get argument time on the McDonald case that's in front of the Supreme Court. I've also noted that the NRA has chosen the attorney who didn't want to represent Heller, and we know how that worked out.

Now, the NRA thinks Alan Gura's on the wrong track with his argument based on the Priviledges or Immunities clause of the 14th amendment, since a successful argument will require the court to overturn up to three precedents. To which I say 'So what? Can anyone say Jim Crow?'. If the precedents are crappy (and there are crappy precedents ..... Roe v Wade anyone?), why shouldn't they be overturned?

But the larger issue is this: why should we need a strategy to secure constitutionally protected rights?

pm