Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco

I couldn't remember if a per curiam was continually relisted or just dropped off the radar. Thanks Esq.

Kharn said:

I couldn't remember if a per curiam was continually relisted or just dropped off the radar. Thanks Esq.

Click to expand...

The purpose of a relist is to decide what to do with a case in a Friday Conference. That's the point of a Friday Conference. If the Court has reached a decision, relisting is unnecessary. If they reached a decision to deny cert., it would have been on the list of denials today. So, we watch for relist. If there is no relist, that means *something* (hint)

ok, I will ask...

esqappellate said:

The purpose of a relist is to decide what to do with a case in a Friday Conference. That's the point of a Friday Conference. If the Court has reached a decision, relisting is unnecessary. If they reached a decision to deny cert., it would have been on the list of denials today. So, we watch for relist. If there is no relist, that means *something* (hint)

Click to expand...

Nervously, afraid to somehow jinx things by even the most remote chance of a noob question....offending the gods, or house hob goblins of the SCOTUS bureaucracy...

If something other than deny, or relist, were decided on a Friday conference, then when would one look for more info? I had the impression THE answer would be given today. But thats my ignorance, on details, I hope.

Would it take a day or so, to publish what had been decided on Friday, or could it be longer, as the normal routine? Or, would a delay infer something like a dissent were being written, to that Friday decision?

Do do not answer if superstition might apply...

rlc2 said:

Nervously, afraid to somehow jinx things by even the most remote chance of a noob question....offending the gods, or house hob goblins of the SCOTUS bureaucracy...

If something other than deny, or relist, were decided on a Friday conference, then when would one look for more info? I had the impression THE answer would be given today. But thats my ignorance, on details, I hope.

Would it take a day or so, to publish what had been decided on Friday, or could it be longer, as the normal routine? Or, would a delay infer something like a dissent were being written, to that Friday decision?

Do do not answer if superstition might apply...

Click to expand...

The only thing, definitively, that could have been decided today would have been to grant or deny cert. Denied, then decision made and game over. Or grant cert (plenary review). Again, cert. decision made, briefing over the summer, argument next Term, merits decision by late 2015. Neither of those happened. The next thing that could have been decided was to postpone a decision to another conference: relist. No relist, at least not yet. Still could happen, but I would have expected it today, if that decision to relist has been made. The Third thing that could have happened was to decide to "hold" the case, pending a decision in a pending case. Not applicable here cuz there is no pending case presenting the same issue. The Fourth thing that could have happened was that the Court actually made a decision to summarily dispose of the case, either vacate or reverse. In that circumstance, the court issues an order that both grants cert. and summarily decides the case in a per curiam decision. That per curiam decision is often short, but can stretch for several pages. There may or may not be a dissent from it. The contents of that per curiam decision will vary, depending on the case. For example, here, the opinion might simply say that "We said X in Heller and we meant it. The distinction proffered by the 9th Circuit is not meaningful. The petition for cert is granted and the decision below is Reversed." Or the per curiam decision might go into the lower court's reasoning and say why it is wrong. If the court is writing a per curiam decision, we will get it by the end of the Term (late June). The good thing here is that we have enough time left in this Term for the Court to write something pretty meaningful, if they are so inclined.

Thank you! I can make a sammich and take a nap, until late June.

sammich eaten, nap interrupted?

rlc2 said:

Thank you! I can make a sammich and take a nap, until late June.

Click to expand...

Distributed for May1 Conference.

H/t Eric at calguns

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/14-704.htm

rlc2 said:

Distributed for May1 Conference.

H/t Eric at calguns

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/14-704.htm

Click to expand...

That's a relist,

3 or 4 relists so far...

Inigoes said:

That's a relist,

3 or 4 relists so far...

Click to expand...

Three. The case is still alive

rlc2 said:

Nervously, afraid to somehow jinx things by even the most remote chance of a noob question....offending the gods, or house hob goblins of the SCOTUS bureaucracy...

If something other than deny, or relist, were decided on a Friday conference, then when would one look for more info? I had the impression THE answer would be given today. But thats my ignorance, on details, I hope.

Would it take a day or so, to publish what had been decided on Friday, or could it be longer, as the normal routine? Or, would a delay infer something like a dissent were being written, to that Friday decision?

Do do not answer if superstition might apply...

Click to expand...

y0! n00B! You can't jinx anything...

esqappellate said:

Three. The case is still alive

Click to expand...

I thought 3 initially, but then didn't know if a reschedule counted or was a mulligan.

Inigoes said:

I thought 3 initially, but then didn't know if a reschedule counted or was a mulligan.

Click to expand...

It has now been listed for a Friday Conf. 3 times. So, I guess you could say it has been "relisted" twice.

But the first conference never happened, it was rescheduled on Thursday prior to that week's meeting. Really, it has only survived one conference, the next one will likely be the decision point, but getting past the first conference is still huge.

Kharn said:

But the first conference never happened, it was rescheduled on Thursday prior to that week's meeting. Really, it has only survived one conference, the next one will likely be the decision point, but getting past the first conference is still huge.

Click to expand...

We just don't know the reason it was rescheduled the first time. My speculation is that it was done at the request of a Justice. If so, that is the functional equivalent of a relist.

more speculation on WTH is going on...

With respect to game theorists, and gay rights debaters,
Note that I Do Not Want to go OT, and debate that, per se

only suggest that another obvious reason for relist may simply be
SCOTUS is so dang busy (aka Occams Razor on clerk work loads)...
Due to what is going on, outside this forums 2A interest,

That is HUGE in comparison, complicated issues, fast evolving,
http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/04/monday-round-up-256/

And in some ways also bears on gun laws...IMHO, in a good way,
For example appellate judges and SCOTUS interest in FACTS....
to answer questions fuzzy and needing resolution, for 2A,
Scrutiny, and exactly HOW do you measure 'public safety'
(I was reassured to hear Judge Millets skepticism in Heller 3, on DC Leo claims...)

Tell me what you think, as it might apply to Jackson, if interested...

Read Lyle Dennison here:
http://lyldenlawnews.com/2015/04/26/sex-marriage-decisive-questions/

What I am suggesting, is even if no new case is pending, on Jackson, what MAY be holding up taking on cert in 2A (for those dismayed by Drake, Woolard, etc)
is bigger philosophical issues, that once resolved, by working thru what SCOTUS has been buried in, will benefit 2A for similar answers, soon:

Philosophical Question One - "who decides" - thats easy, as 2A goes, its fed over states, ie SCOTUS on constitutional rights to keep and bear...

Question Two- "what right at issue?"- again, no brainer, its 2A.

Question Three: "What is the constitutional test" (scrutiny, and how measured)

Regardless of ones politics, perhaps we can hope that SCOTUS' immersion in civil rights to marriage, health care, and immigration...will make their answers easier,

Having waded through the fuzzy topics of scrutiny, and also explode the siily logical fallacies of appeals to authority on "public safety",
with the many existing and emerging "post ccw = crime rates dropping" type facts...

Perhaps the limited goverment control of a fundamental individual civil right to self defense, might be more..."self evident", in comparison...

Any takers, while we wait, one more week? Or should this go to another thread?

rlc2 said:

With respect to game theorists, and gay rights debaters,
Note that I Do Not Want to go OT, and debate that, per se

only suggest that another obvious reason for relist may simply be
SCOTUS is so dang busy (aka Occams Razor on clerk work loads)...
Due to what is going on, outside this forums 2A interest,

That is HUGE in comparison, complicated issues, fast evolving,
http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/04/monday-round-up-256/

And in some ways also bears on gun laws...IMHO, in a good way,
For example appellate judges and SCOTUS interest in FACTS....
to answer questions fuzzy and needing resolution, for 2A,
Scrutiny, and exactly HOW do you measure 'public safety'
(I was reassured to hear Judge Millets skepticism in Heller 3, on DC Leo claims...)

Tell me what you think, as it might apply to Jackson, if interested...

Read Lyle Dennison here:
http://lyldenlawnews.com/2015/04/26/sex-marriage-decisive-questions/

What I am suggesting, is even if no new case is pending, on Jackson, what MAY be holding up taking on cert in 2A (for those dismayed by Drake, Woolard, etc)
is bigger philosophical issues, that once resolved, by working thru what SCOTUS has been buried in, will benefit 2A for similar answers, soon:

Philosophical Question One - "who decides" - thats easy, as 2A goes, its fed over states, ie SCOTUS on constitutional rights to keep and bear...

Question Two- "what right at issue?"- again, no brainer, its 2A.

Question Three: "What is the constitutional test" (scrutiny, and how measured)

Regardless of ones politics, perhaps we can hope that SCOTUS' immersion in civil rights to marriage, health care, and immigration...will make their answers easier,

On government control of a fundamental individual civil right to self defense, since those might be more..."self evident", in comparison...

Any takers, while we wait, one more week? Or should this go to another thread?

Click to expand...

I doubt it's that the court is busy. Right now, there's some level of interest in the case, and that's why it's been re-listed twice. It's possible some canvassing among judges was happening, or they really want to take a very close look at Jackson and decide whether it's a proper vehicle.

Question 3 is the big one here. Jackson presents a case so close to Heller and McDonald that it's hard to believe one of the 5 in the majority flipping in this case. It also provides an opportunity for the court to straighten out the shenanigans in the lower courts (without striking down laws that'll affect multiple states).
I think it may see a few more relists but that's a WAG on my part, based off nothing other than the trend of SCOTUS lately to re-list cases over and over.

Justice Kennedy insight if interested...

..then follow that link to scotusblog, then to the WSJ article link there on Kennedy. Maybe discuss on seperate thread, if any interested. I think Gura is wise to frame 2A in ref larger civil right(s) movement, like in recent briefs...

The political argument that 2A rights is for for ALL, is the obvious Diversity Truth that the Left is desperate to obscure, in the "evil NRA takeover of the world by gun nuts" memes in agitprop at TPM, Media Matters, MSNBC. Clasic bitter cllnger divide and conquer bs from all the many community coordinators...is old, tired, and here is my gut instinct:

The reality is that more and more independent thinkers are sick and tired of the Lefts political lies, on 2A fact obscurations, by hysterical character attacks, to deflect from crime and safety stats that DO favor keep and bear, ccw,

and that sea change includes the Millenials, AND intellectualy courageous independent thinkers like Justice Kennedy, too, regardless of pigeon holes labelled "who appointed who"

I hope you are correct...

press1280 said:

I doubt it's that the court is busy. Right now, there's some level of interest in the case, and that's why it's been re-listed twice. It's possible some canvassing among judges was happening, or they really want to take a very close look at Jackson and decide whether it's a proper vehicle.

Question 3 is the big one here. Jackson presents a case so close to Heller and McDonald that it's hard to believe one of the 5 in the majority flipping in this case. It also provides an opportunity for the court to straighten out the shenanigans in the lower courts (without striking down laws that'll affect multiple states).
I think it may see a few more relists but that's a WAG on my part, based off nothing other than the trend of SCOTUS lately to re-list cases over and over.

Click to expand...

I agree. I post the observation about workload being delay, to reassure myself again there are good reasons 2A stuff doesnt happen as fast as I might like...

noting also that per one source, the first relist is a freebie.

Btw, here's more on how long "the streak" has stretched in relists elsewhere...with humor,

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/05/relist-watch-oh-yes-they-call-it-the-streak/

First off game theory is a great discipline that has not been applied to this area of law.

As to the big picture question, I think Kennedy is not a happy camper. Heller is the most disingenuous opinion of the modern era and was likely written that way to ensure a 5th vote. The core right of the Second Amendment is not a right to shoot a burglar. Every colonial era reference to self defense is to natural self defense. That is your military right to self defense. The opinion uses the phrase dangerous and unusual to make the first time reader believe this phrase refers to certain types of bearable weapons and via this doctrine can be prohibited. It in fact refers to a time place and manner restriction on carry. E.g. you can carry a handgun down main street but not a rifle (presumably) because that is unusual. The discussion of United States v. Miller does not really say anything but it makes the reader think the ordinary soldier's equipment language should be disavowed.

The lower courts have pointed out some of these issues. The third Circuit made repeated references to the different types of self defense. The recent Mass. taser case was a bad opinion but one thing that struck me was the opinion disposing of dangerous and unusual without analysis.

Heller really only stands for the proposition that bearable arms that do not have military value are protected as along as they have value as personal self defense weapons. Obviously without its definitive holding we'd be hosed but a honest reading of Miller finds it ruled for a individual right and remanded the case to the lower court for a trial on whether short barrel shotguns are militia arms as opposed to criminal weapons as the government argued. At the time it was universally accepts that militia equals the people.

We get to Heller and that all changes. So Scalia writes a historically accurate opinion that is intended to mislead the reader. As it would defeat his goal to explain the historical terms he makes up words to explain there is a limit to the right. Sensitive places being the most important one. He also adds First Amendment language that seems uninforming without the dangerous and unusual language understood.

So what do we have at this point? A opinion that makes a far broader ruling than it appears to be that can be cited back to to make a it easier for a future court to go Scalia's way. Heller is law but I think that at least one of the five Justices is angry, Not enough to vote the other way but enough to not want to deal with the issue. What does that mean for us? Cert will only be granted when it has to due to Circuit split or one of the other core issuing rationales.

As to how all that impacts Jackson. To me the legal merits of the case are not compelling in light of what stage this case is at. If I were the Court I'd be thinking these guys still can win at the trial court and wait until the case is in front of the Court after having a full hearing.

Why do people think Kennedy is "angry". There seems to be an implicit assumption he voted reluctantly or under duress. Heller is just as easily explained by the fact that the court only rules narrowly and wanted the law to be more fully developed.

Large portions of Heller's historical language mean something other than they appear to. I don't think he is angry in a personal way with Scalia. I do think he feels like Scalia got one over on him and he is annoyed enough with the situation that he does not want to deal with Second Amendment cases. Thus, the 4 other pro gun judges don't want to risk him going the other way.