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

ryan_j · Apr 18, 2014

Peaceful John said:
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.

Yeah that's a big IF, and we know a lot of republicans lack a spine and will just cave. I don't think Obama is going to appoint another Scalia or Thomas or even a Kennedy or Roberts.

ryan_j · Apr 18, 2014

Gryphon said:
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.

I agree on that. I'm talking about the argument before the court, not what happens in practice.

Gryphon · Apr 18, 2014

ryan_j said:
I agree on that. I'm talking about the argument before the court, not what happens in practice.

Gotcha. Legal arguments in a brief do not create or codify law. Arguments are just that and are therefore highly susceptible to being discarded and ignored in the future - even by those that made them. Democrats like Gansler have no fear of hypocrisy in Maryland. It's all around them yet most of the voters here apparently don't recognize or appreciate it as a problem.

Hopalong · Apr 18, 2014

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

Don't get me wrong, I'm not hoping this happens. I'd much rather them take Drake.

I was just wondering out loud because at this point that's really any of us can do aside from wait.

danb · Apr 18, 2014

There is no guarantee Peruta makes it to SCT. Madigan didn't. If they were to lose en banc the smart thing for national anti-gun groups to do is not appeal it. My recollection is that Woollard briefs called out some upcoming cases, like Peruta. Drake did not. I was really anxious when they did not take Woollard, but Peruta was worth waiting for. SCT was smarter than me. SCT will not take a case until they are forced to decide the issue. Whether they take Drake I guess depends on your view as to whether there is another insightful opinion out there waiting to be written, either from the en banc court in Peruta/Richards/Baker, if they take them, or the DC court. There is a very clear split in the reasoning across the courts, and Peruta was clear other circuits relied on the dissenting opinion in Heller. Hard for me to believe they will let that stand.

There were 4 articles in Harvard Law last week on guns. I hope that got their attention.

In any event, its decided, they are just typing up the memo for Monday I'm sure.

Maestro Pistolero · Apr 18, 2014

Part of me wonders if they'll pass on Drake to take Peruta.

danb said:
There is no guarantee Peruta makes it to SCT. Madigan didn't. If they were to lose en banc the smart thing for national anti-gun groups to do is not appeal it.

This. If they pass on Drake it won't be because they're waiting for Peruta.

rambling_one · Apr 18, 2014

There's only two things I'm certain about at this point. I can not legally carry in Maryland and I'm getting older by the day.

Inigoes · Apr 18, 2014

rambling_one said:
There's only two things I'm certain about at this point. I can not legally carry in Maryland and I'm getting older by the day.

You can legally carry on your own property

Kharn · Apr 18, 2014

Nothing about Drake in today's miscellaneous orders list, but no grants were listed, just orders in pending cases.

jrosenberger · Apr 18, 2014

Kharn said:
Nothing about Drake in today's miscellaneous orders list, but no grants were listed, just orders in pending cases.

No surprise. I believe same day orders from conference cases is extremely rare.

Maestro Pistolero · Apr 18, 2014

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/041814zr_g204.pdf

It'll be Monday.

moojersey · Apr 18, 2014

LOL am I reading that right? SCOTUS will hear the POM Wonderful VS Coca Cola case ?

Woodnickel · Apr 18, 2014

moojersey said:
LOL am I reading that right? SCOTUS will hear the POM Wonderful VS Coca Cola case ?

But then deny a case about an infringed constitutional right and scotus precedent that has been disregarded by lower courts...... I hope I'm wrong.

ryan_j · Apr 18, 2014

moojersey said:
LOL am I reading that right? SCOTUS will hear the POM Wonderful VS Coca Cola case ?

Yep. The writ was granted in January. This order is just so the Solicitor General can participate in the orals.

press1280 · Apr 19, 2014

moojersey said:
LOL am I reading that right? SCOTUS will hear the POM Wonderful VS Coca Cola case ?

After briefly skimming the petition, it seems the 9th Circuit created a split with 3 other Circuits.......
2 justices played no role in the consideration(meaning I guess that they still got 4 yea votes with only 7 justices considering it)
In Drake, the 9th Circuit also created a split with 3 Circuits (with CA7's Moore playing a role as well). A good sign?

Maestro Pistolero · Apr 19, 2014

press1280 said:
After briefly skimming the petition, it seems the 9th Circuit created a split with 3 other Circuits.......
2 justices played no role in the consideration(meaning I guess that they still got 4 yea votes with only 7 justices considering it)
In Drake, the 9th Circuit also created a split with 3 Circuits (with CA7's Moore playing a role as well). A good sign?

Now if we can get Sotomayor and Ginsburg to abstain from the next carry case . . . .

ryan_j · Apr 19, 2014

press1280 said:
After briefly skimming the petition, it seems the 9th Circuit created a split with 3 other Circuits.......
2 justices played no role in the consideration(meaning I guess that they still got 4 yea votes with only 7 justices considering it)
In Drake, the 9th Circuit also created a split with 3 Circuits (with CA7's Moore playing a role as well). A good sign?

The only variable here is that the case in the 9th had its en banc petition denied. That's still up in the air for Peruta.

press1280 · Apr 19, 2014

ryan_j said:
The only variable here is that the case in the 9th had its en banc petition denied. That's still up in the air for Peruta.

I'm just curious if the justices are aware that Peruta isn't cemented yet. Normally the party opposing cert (in this case NJ) would tell the court to wait for another case (like Peruta/Richards/Baker) but NJ's arrogance didn't allow them to.

Maestro Pistolero · Apr 20, 2014

press1280 said:
I'm just curious if the justices are aware that Peruta isn't cemented yet. Normally the party opposing cert (in this case NJ) would tell the court to wait for another case (like Peruta/Richards/Baker) but NJ's arrogance didn't allow them to.

I would be shocked if they were unaware of the yet-to-be finalized status of Peruta (i.e. Baker and Richards). Any briefs in opposition would no doubt point out that active en banc petitions are yet unanswered. Also, required notices of supplemental authority would keep the court up to speed.

press1280 · Apr 20, 2014

Maestro Pistolero said:
I would be shocked if they were unaware of the yet-to-be finalized status of Peruta (i.e. Baker and Richards). Any briefs in opposition would no doubt point out that active en banc petitions are yet unanswered. Also, required notices of supplemental authority would keep the court up to speed.

That's just it-they didn't note this, reading the brief gives you no impression that Peruta is anything other than a done deal.
Now maybe the SCOTUS clerks would point this out, but it sort of defeats the purpose of the parties filing supplementals. Sort of like both parties presenting arguments, but then the justices use other information not provided. I could be wrong though.

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

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

inveniam viam aut faciam

Man of Many Nicknames

dont be a dumbass

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Active Member

Sic Semper Tyrannis

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics