Woollard: Petition For Rehearing En Banc Denied.

rmiddle · Apr 19, 2013

nobis1 said:
On abortion and gay marriage, the Republicans are awful messengers. Gay marriage is a state issue, period. For abortion, focus on the really bad stuff (ie, late term abortions when you are killing a viable child) to sway the masses to your side. Oh, and it is a state issue also.

Gay Marriage is a state issue and it needs to stay there and the Federal courts need to stop putting itself into the equation.

Abortion became a federal issue when the SC made it a federal issue. By creating laws out of thin air. That is all I am asking for is a SC that stops making laws and follows them. To me that means a reversal in a lot of crap. The problem is the only Judges we are going to see Obama promoting are Judges that think they are in Congress making the laws.

Thanks
Robert

wesser1 · Apr 19, 2013

I'm honestly quite surprised to hear gun advocates saying that same sex marriage is a "state issue." For one, it has implications at the federal level (income taxes). Second, why should some states be allowed to infringe on people's rights? You don't have to like the idea of equality in the same way other don't have to like guns. But that doesn't mean states should be able to prevent people from living their lives the way they see fit as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else (it doesn't). This is just like the CCW and "Assault Weapons" issues we deal with on a regular basis. This stuff needs to be dealt with in all states the same way. States can decide how to manage their own budgets and problems, but RIGHTS should not be up to the states because they are protected by the constitution, regardless of anyone's opinion.

Maestro Pistolero · Apr 19, 2013

WTF? Can we PLEASE take the gay marriage discussion to its own thread?

MDFF2008 · Apr 19, 2013

Maestro Pistolero said:
WTF? Can we PLEASE take the gay marriage discussion to its own thread?

The problem is, gay marriage is actually not a bad parallel for gun rights.

Haides · Apr 19, 2013

Nobody has a right to get married, but the state doesn't have the right to regulate it either.

I don't understand why people won't just see that removing government from the equation solves about 98% of the nations issues? Want to fix the economy? Stop regulating it. Want crime to go down? Stop trying (in vain) to regulate it. Want the middle east to stop attacking us? Stop stealing their oil, bombing their children, funding their enemies and installing puppet rulers. Want people to STFU about "marriage equality?" Stop regulating something you (the .gov) have no business regulating. It's all the same issue. If the government would go back to it's real job of protecting rights and not doing ANYTHING else, we wouldn't have most of the problems we do today.

press1280 · Apr 19, 2013

danb said:
curious, what is the advantage of waiting? why wouldnt one get the ball rolling and let the judges decide which case they want to hear?

The advantage to waiting is that we really don't have a solid circuit(or even state supreme court) split yet. I don't consider Moore to be a total split as the laws are different. By waiting we allow the other cases in the pipeline to be decided and if we win one, then the split is complete and there's no two ways about it.
Also, remember the SCOTUS term runs from September to June. As long as a case gets cert by January or February, it'll be heard and decided by June. So whether a case gets accepted in September or January is irrelevant, unless you're counting on a justice to die during the term.

GTOGUNNER · Apr 19, 2013

gprimr1 said:
The problem is, gay marriage is actually not a bad parallel for gun rights.

I changed my mind on it days before the election, for the exact same reason.

cad68m_m · Apr 19, 2013

JD-IAFF said:
Where are you getting this from? McCain got 59,948,323 votes in 2008. Romney got 60,931,767 in 2012. He improved on McCain's vote count by almost a million votes (983,444).

Moreover, we (Republicans) LOST seats in both houses of Congress in 2012, despite gerrymandering in 2010. If the generic congressional polling stays at its current numbers, we're on track to lose a good many more in 2014.

Because we're alienating potential voters for no defensible reason.

What the earlier poster said is, IMO, accurate. The electorate tends to break down along social policy lines, with diehard liberal viewpoints on social policy going reliably D, diehard conservative viewpoints on social policy going R, and the moderates in the middle trying to decide between the lesser of two evils. Those moderate folks tend, by and large, to be repelled by what they regard as extremist socially conservative policy statements.

Gay marriage is a good example of that. Regardless of our personal viewpoints on that issue, the polling makes it abundantly clear that public opinion at large has swung and continues to swing, decisively, towards acceptance. Meanwhile, we're busily inserting planks into the platform that vigorously denounce it. That's a recipe for persuading people not to vote R on election day.

The sooner we jettison the social stuff and get back to basics on the stuff that people agree on (fiscal discipline, etc.) the sooner we'll be back in power. Until then, we're arguably shooting ourselves in the collective feet.

Truth people we cant do it on conservatives alone, there are not enough of them.

Kharn · Apr 19, 2013

press1280 said:
The advantage to waiting is that we really don't have a solid circuit(or even state supreme court) split yet. I don't consider Moore to be a total split as the laws are different. By waiting we allow the other cases in the pipeline to be decided and if we win one, then the split is complete and there's no two ways about it.
Also, remember the SCOTUS term runs from September to June. As long as a case gets cert by January or February, it'll be heard and decided by June. So whether a case gets accepted in September or January is irrelevant, unless you're counting on a justice to die during the term.

If Cert is granted in February, our case will not be heard until next term as there is another round of briefs (taking 90 days, IIRC) before oral argument can be heard. If Woollard's petition is due this summer, we should have a cert decision by November, which does give time to be heard this year.

Here's Heller's docket, which was also a summer/fall petition: Docket, and should give you an idea of the timeline we're looking at.

krucam · Jun 2, 2013

Countdown to Petition for Cert given Moore's likely non-appearance at One First.

Supreme Court requires (Rule 13) the petition 90 days following judgment.

Supreme Court Rules said:
Rule 13. Review on Certiorari: Time for Petitioning
1. Unless otherwise provided by law, a petition for a writ of certiorari to review a judgment in any case, civil or criminal, entered by a state court of last resort or a United States court of appeals (including the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces) is timely when it is filed with the Clerk of this Court within 90 days after entry of the judgment.

The CA4 Woollard Docket shows the following final events:

04/16/2013 124 0 COURT ORDER filed [999087372] denying Motion for rehearing en banc [122] Copies to all parties.. [12-1437] (DL) 2013-05-07 20:39:38

04/24/2013 125 0 Mandate issued.

Using 4/16/2013 (en banc denial) as the start of a 90 day count, we have 7/15/2013 for a petition due date.
Using 4/24/2013 (mandate issued) as the judgment date would mean a 7/23/2013 due date.

Tick, tick, tick....

Robert · Jun 2, 2013

krucam said:
Countdown to Petition for Cert given Moore's likely non-appearance at One First.

Supreme Court requires (Rule 13) the petition 90 days following judgment.

The CA4 Woollard Docket shows the following final events:

Using 4/16/2013 (en banc denial) as the start of a 90 day count, we have 7/15/2013 for a petition due date.
Using 4/24/2013 (mandate issued) as the judgment date would mean a 7/23/2013 due date.

Tick, tick, tick....

So what you're saying is 'in about 2 weeks'.

DavidMS · Jun 2, 2013

The supreme court must take a case as I understand it.

Moore v. Madigan was decided one way, Woollard was decided the other. As a result, the supreme court must take the issue.

krucam · Jun 2, 2013

DavidMS said:
Moore v. Madigan was decided one way, Woollard was decided the other. As a result, the supreme court must take the issue.

I wouldn't bet my life on it...

Woollard involved a discretionary may-issue law.

Moore involved a blanket no-issue law.

Not perfect. There ARE arguable differences however between the Appellate opinions and Moore would certainly be heavily quoted in a cert petition.

Inigoes · Jun 2, 2013

krucam said:
I wouldn't bet my life on it...

Woollard involved a discretionary may-issue law.

Moore involved a blanket no-issue law.

Not perfect. There ARE arguable differences however between the Appellate opinions and Moore would certainly be heavily quoted in a cert petition.

Hopefully, the third time is the charm :fingerscrossed:

Patrick · Jun 3, 2013

I never thought we'd see Woollard going to SCOTUS, given the fact we were further down the line than other cases. I think Moore was the screwball - we were supposed to lose in Illinois.

At this point we'll see whether Woollard truly is "batting cleanup" after the Moore non-petition. Other than IL, there is only DC with a complete ban. And it's clear the DC District/Circuit has zero interest in moving that case, at all.

MDFF2008 · Jun 3, 2013

Patrick said:
I never thought we'd see Woollard going to SCOTUS, given the fact we were further down the line than other cases. I think Moore was the screwball - we were supposed to lose in Illinois.

At this point we'll see whether Woollard truly is "batting cleanup" after the Moore non-petition. Other than IL, there is only DC with a complete ban. And it's clear the DC District/Circuit has zero interest in moving that case, at all.

I wonder if this is because they know they have to rule against DC.

Patrick · Jun 3, 2013

gprimr1 said:
I wonder if this is because they know they have to rule against DC.

The DC Circuit is the jumping point for higher court appointments, including (especially) the Supreme Court. I think the DC Circuit is the home of somewhere north of 50% or more of all Justices in recent history.

Making tough calls on social issues is not something you do to get ahead.

Sorry to be so cynical, but I think that regardless of the outcome nobody who wants a Congressional approval for a higher judgeship is looking forward to big gun questions. I'd lump them in with immigration policy and gay marriage issues, except I think the gun issues are more contentious in many respects.

press1280 · Jun 8, 2013

Patrick said:
I never thought we'd see Woollard going to SCOTUS, given the fact we were further down the line than other cases. I think Moore was the screwball - we were supposed to lose in Illinois.

At this point we'll see whether Woollard truly is "batting cleanup" after the Moore non-petition. Other than IL, there is only DC with a complete ban. And it's clear the DC District/Circuit has zero interest in moving that case, at all.

Well, there is one other case- People v. Aguilar in the Illinois Supreme Court, which (according to its docket number) has been waiting for an opinion the longest amount of time. I'm not sure how that shakes out if the IL carry law passes. I assume they still have to rule on the statute itself. While this isn't the plaintiff we want at SCOTUS, it may well be the statute that the justices want to rule on first. You can bet if Aguilar loses, he'll file for cert. It would also set up a split(CA7/IL Supremes) over a law that probably won't exist much longer.
As for Palmer, good lord. The SCOTUS chief justice reassigns the case after it doesn't move for 2 years, then what happens? It sits another 2 years. Ridiculous.
As far as Woollard goes I think it would be wise for Gura to ask for an extension or two to file for cert, just to give the other cases a chance to be decided and cement a TRUE split.

Patrick · Jun 9, 2013

press1280 said:
Well, there is one other case- People v. Aguilar in the Illinois Supreme Court, which (according to its docket number) has been waiting for an opinion the longest amount of time. I'm not sure how that shakes out if the IL carry law passes. I assume they still have to rule on the statute itself. While this isn't the plaintiff we want at SCOTUS, it may well be the statute that the justices want to rule on first. You can bet if Aguilar loses, he'll file for cert. It would also set up a split(CA7/IL Supremes) over a law that probably won't exist much longer.
As for Palmer, good lord. The SCOTUS chief justice reassigns the case after it doesn't move for 2 years, then what happens? It sits another 2 years. Ridiculous.
As far as Woollard goes I think it would be wise for Gura to ask for an extension or two to file for cert, just to give the other cases a chance to be decided and cement a TRUE split.

I think the timing is such that we're waiting until Fall either way given the break for the court. In the event another case pops this summer, they can file a notice to the court and say a few words.

The question will have to come up some time. Just a matter of 'when'.

There are those theorizing that neither side of the court wants the case because of a 4-4-1 split. Too much risk for any team. I hope that is not the case.

fightinbluhen51 · Jun 10, 2013

Patrick said:
I think the timing is such that we're waiting until Fall either way given the break for the court. In the event another case pops this summer, they can file a notice to the court and say a few words.

The question will have to come up some time. Just a matter of 'when'.

There are those theorizing that neither side of the court wants the case because of a 4-4-1 split. Too much risk for any team. I hope that is not the case.

What happens when that happens?

The last ruling stands? The trial court? A no decision?

Woollard: Petition For Rehearing En Banc Denied.

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

IANAL, PATRIOT PICKET!!

Member MSI, SAF, NRA

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Having Fun Yet?

Member

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

MSI Executive Member

Ultimate Member

MSI Executive Member

Ultimate Member

MSI Executive Member

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics