SAF files for cert in Drake (NJ may-issue)

[ryan_j]

*sigh*

http://pix11.com/2014/04/14/1-dead-1-injured-in-stabbing-at-nj-shopping-center/#axzz2yuM5GLKu

One dead, one injured. No guns used.

 

[AC20814]

so will we know on the 18th what the disposition of the cert petition will be, or will we have to wait till Monday?

 

[danb]

Monday, most likely.

 

[Kharn]

Sometimes the Court will sometimes release grants in miscellaneous orders on Fridays, but they also regularly include grants in the orders list (which includes all of the denied petitions) on Mondays. In other words: Maybe Friday, most likely Monday.

 

[ryan_j]

Star Ledger:

http://www.nj.com/sussex-county/ind...eme_court_on_friday.html#incart_river_default

Going to be a long weekend.

 

[ryan_j]

Drake is now SCOTUSBlog's petition of the day.

 

[teratos]

Drake is now SCOTUSBlog's petition of the day.

Let's hope it doesn't become the petition of yesterday.

 

[kcbrown]

My hope is that they will grant cert to Drake. My expectation (and thus my prediction) is that they won't.

 

[Gryphon]

My hope is that they will grant cert to Drake. My expectation (and thus my prediction) is that they won't.

I hope you are wrong. The issue is unquestionably ripe. If SCOTUS fails to grant cert this time it may well be perceived by many (including myself) as a willful, conspiratorial, disregard of their primary duty, and an abandonment of The People. In essence, that would leave us with 2 unchecked branches of government, and a lot disenfranchised firearm owners. Not a good combination for peace and tranquility in Utopia.

 

[ryan_j]

I hope you are wrong. The issue is unquestionably ripe. If SCOTUS fails to grant cert this time it may well be perceived by many (including myself) as a willful, conspiratorial, disregard of their primary duty, and an abandonment of The People. In essence, that would leave us with 2 unchecked branches of government, and a lot disenfranchised firearm owners. Not a good combination for peace and tranquility in Utopia.

Yeah it would also signal that the 2A is dead letter and Heller means nothing.

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

If they do decide to take the case, when would the arguments be heard?

Shame they don't have to post rationale for not taking cases...

 

[kcbrown]

I hope you are wrong. The issue is unquestionably ripe. If SCOTUS fails to grant cert this time it may well be perceived by many (including myself) as a willful, conspiratorial, disregard of their primary duty, and an abandonment of The People. In essence, that would leave us with 2 unchecked branches of government, and a lot disenfranchised firearm owners. Not a good combination for peace and tranquility in Utopia.

I completely agree.

The reason I expect them to deny cert here is that they denied cert in Woollard, and this case is essentially the same (yes, it's not identical in all respects, but it's identical in all the ways that really matter). There is absolutely no logical reason for SCOTUS to take this case when they didn't take Woollard.

To presume that SCOTUS was waiting for all the circuits to say something about the issue is to presume that what those circuits have to say would change the outcome as regards whether or not SCOTUS would decide to protect the right in public. Which is to say, to presume that would be to presume that SCOTUS' opinion is, in this case, subservient to that of the circuit courts. Since it only take one circuit getting it wrong to trigger SCOTUS' duty to uphold the right, it follows that SCOTUS should have taken the first well-formed case that denied the right. They didn't.

And that is why I expect SCOTUS to deny cert to Drake (and to Peruta, Richards, and/or Baker): it is the only action that is fully logically consistent in all ways with their past behavior.

Of course, nothing says that SCOTUS must always act in a logically consistent fashion, and so I hold out hope that they grant cert to Drake. But for the purpose of making predictions, I must assume logical consistency, as to assume otherwise in the absence of other corroborative data is to eliminate predictive ability entirely (as one can then only randomly choose between all possibilities).

 

[fightinbluhen51]

Drake is now SCOTUSBlog's petition of the day.

Well, that hasn't happened before.

Let's hope it doesn't become the petition of yesterday.

Exactly

I hope you are wrong. The issue is unquestionably ripe. If SCOTUS fails to grant cert this time it may well be perceived by many (including myself) as a willful, conspiratorial, disregard of their primary duty, and an abandonment of The People. In essence, that would leave us with 4 unchecked branches of government, and a lot disenfranchised firearm owners. Not a good combination for peace and tranquility in Utopia.

FIFY (see bold)

If they do decide to take the case, when would the arguments be heard?

Shame they don't have to post rationale for not taking cases...

I'm guessing the fall term...sometime between September and December 2014, with a decision coming 30 June 2015.

 

[ProGunBaller]

I hope you are wrong. The issue is unquestionably ripe. If SCOTUS fails to grant cert this time it may well be perceived by many (including myself) as a willful, conspiratorial, disregard of their primary duty, and an abandonment of The People. In essence, that would leave us with 2 unchecked branches of government, and a lot disenfranchised firearm owners. Not a good combination for peace and tranquility in Utopia.

Exactly. The lower courts have "interpreted" the 2nd Amendment in such a way that ANY gun control measure, no matter how silly, ineffective, or burdensome, passes Constitutional muster. If those decisions are allowed to stand, then the 2nd Amendment is effectively read out of the Constitution, much like the Privileges or Immunities Clause was after the Slaughterhouse cases.

 

[press1280]

I completely agree.

The reason I expect them to deny cert here is that they denied cert in Woollard, and this case is essentially the same (yes, it's not identical in all respects, but it's identical in all the ways that really matter). There is absolutely no logical reason for SCOTUS to take this case when they didn't take Woollard.

To presume that SCOTUS was waiting for all the circuits to say something about the issue is to presume that what those circuits have to say would change the outcome as regards whether or not SCOTUS would decide to protect the right in public. Which is to say, to presume that would be to presume that SCOTUS' opinion is, in this case, subservient to that of the circuit courts. Since it only take one circuit getting it wrong to trigger SCOTUS' duty to uphold the right, it follows that SCOTUS should have taken the first well-formed case that denied the right. They didn't.

And that is why I expect SCOTUS to deny cert to Drake (and to Peruta, Richards, and/or Baker): it is the only action that is fully logically consistent in all ways with their past behavior.

Of course, nothing says that SCOTUS must always act in a logically consistent fashion, and so I hold out hope that they grant cert to Drake. But for the purpose of making predictions, I must assume logical consistency, as to assume otherwise in the absence of other corroborative data is to eliminate predictive ability entirely (as one can then only randomly choose between all possibilities).

Scotus is largely a conflict-resolving body now. I believe over 90 percent of grants are due to lower court splits. One of a kind cases (like Bush. V. Gore) rarely come along, and Drake isn't in that category.
At some point they probably do have to intervene, the problem is are they looking for a Castleman type split involving almost all Circuits? We may have a problem there since there's only a few may-issue states and realistically won't have cases in many Circuits.

 

[Hopalong]

Part of me wonders if they'll pass on Drake to take Peruta. It would seem somewhat poetic for the court to answer the calling-out they got in that case with the final ruling on that same case.

But who knows. Time will tell.

 

[ryan_j]

I know Marylanders are still feeling the hurt from the denial of Woollard but I think that Drake has a better chance based on Peruta and just how silly NJ's argument is. At least in MD, gansler provided an avenue for bearing arms. NJAG provides absolutely none. I predict a grant.

 

[ryan_j]

Part of me wonders if they'll pass on Drake to take Peruta. It would seem somewhat poetic for the court to answer the calling-out they got in that case with the final ruling on that same case.

But who knows. Time will tell.

With en banc that could be four years and change? I don't think the court will be the same by then.

 

[Peaceful John]

With en banc that could be four years and change? I don't think the court will be the same by then.

Might not be as bad as all that. The inflection point is Nov 2014. If the Republicans take the Senate it will be very difficult for Mr. Obama to confirm his SCOTUS nominees. I'm holding my breath until the election returns are in.

 

[Gryphon]

. . . At least in MD, Gansler provided an avenue for bearing arms. NJAG provides absolutely none. I predict a grant.

I agree with your post except about Gansler. He did no such thing. He is a disingenuous, oath breaking, political hack that doesn't give two sh*ts about the Constitution vis a vie the 2A. He just said what he had to in the State's brief to convince the 4th Circuit that an illusory option to carry exists when he knows in reality it does not. If he were elected Governor - a long shot - I would expect (notwithstanding the statements in his brief) that he would direct the Superintendent of the State police to arrest those openly carrying loaded long guns on the spot, and wouldn't lose one minute of sleep regarding the patent inconsistency.