Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco

[Southwest Chuck]

Not getting hopes up.
Not getting hopes up..
Not getting hopes up...

Too late hopes up. Relist is a good sign.

Not sure you can classify it as a relist since it showed up yesterday as a re-scheduled and didn't carry over to today? Not sure Is a day before a conference relisting, common?

( ..... Shhh ..... don't tell anyone, but my hopes are up too )

 

[press1280]

this is a good thing!

You'll have to explain this. They rescheduled this even before the conference. Enos has just filed for cert (also out of CA9), will they try to put those on the same conference date?

 

[danb]

You'll have to explain this. They rescheduled this even before the conference. Enos has just filed for cert (also out of CA9), will they try to put those on the same conference date?

Generally the pool of cert grants (and other orders) have come from relists (reschedules). It means they are holding this for closer scrutiny.

Not sure if it means anything that they rescheduled before the conference - (usually relists are not known until conference orders are out).

Johnson v. United States is also being re-argued monday.

 

[esqappellate]

You'll have to explain this. They rescheduled this even before the conference. Enos has just filed for cert (also out of CA9), will they try to put those on the same conference date?

Enos and this case are entirely dissimilar and won't be considered together. Rescheduling probably means (and this is important) that some Justice(s) wants it off this conference, probably because he/she/they wants to review it and discuss it later. Most cert denials never get past the pool memo. This suggests that at least one Justice wants to read and think about the case. We will know more when if it is relisted.

 

[press1280]

Generally the pool of cert grants (and other orders) have come from relists (reschedules). It means they are holding this for closer scrutiny.

Not sure if it means anything that they rescheduled before the conference - (usually relists are not known until conference orders are out).

Johnson v. United States is also being re-argued monday.

A good article explaining re-lists http://habeascorpusblog.typepad.com...habeas-corpus-the-mystery-of-the-re-list.html

Doing it before even the first conference date definitely makes it interesting.

 

[press1280]

Enos and this case are entirely dissimilar and won't be considered together. Rescheduling probably means (and this is important) that some Justice(s) wants it off this conference, probably because he/she/they wants to review it and discuss it later. Most cert denials never get past the pool memo. This suggests that at least one Justice wants to read and think about the case. We will know more when if it is relisted.

But couldn't they have just done it at the conference? I thought any justice can basically have the case relisted whenever they want.
Any reason a justice is trying to keep it out of conference?

 

[Kharn]

But couldn't they have just done it at the conference? I thought any justice can basically have the case relisted whenever they want.
Any reason a justice is trying to keep it out of conference?

It saves time during the conference because they don't have to discuss it, or risk it being down-voted before the interested Justice(s) are ready to advocate for granting cert in detail.

 

[esqappellate]

It saves time during the conference because they don't have to discuss it, or risk it being down-voted before the interested Justice(s) are ready to advocate for granting cert in detail.

All of that, plus maybe a little canvassing to gauge the interest.

 

[rlc2]

Canvassing...

All of that, plus maybe a little canvassing to gauge the interest.

That sounds like the speculation I read (here? calguns?) behind Drake relisting:

1. that relisting delay due to Heller 4 assessing if Justice Kennedy had gone squishy,
post Newtown, and if so,

2. then cert denied because the 4 didnt want to risk a decision against 2A,

3 and best to wait for a better case, with better vote count to win.

 

[Maestro Pistolero]

That sounds like the speculation I read (here? calguns?) behind Drake relisting:

1. that relisting delay due to Heller 4 assessing if Justice Kennedy had gone squishy,
post Newtown, and if so,

2. then cert denied because the 4 didnt want to risk a decision against 2A,

3 and best to wait for a better case, with better vote count to win.

If that is what is behind the all of the cert denials then I am in agreement. We can always bring new cases later, but once the right is foreclosed with no recourse… we are scar-oohed forever.

 

[rlc2]

thanks, thats a keeper, bookmarked.

A good article explaining re-lists http://habeascorpusblog.typepad.com...habeas-corpus-the-mystery-of-the-re-list.html

Doing it before even the first conference date definitely makes it interesting.

Excellent find, thanks.

 

[rlc2]

PS a "Plain English" explanation of how cert works...

In case it hasn't been mentioned already- more useful info for noobs like me:

http://www.scotusblog.com/reference/educational-resources/supreme-court-procedure/

 

[Kharn]

That sounds like the speculation I read (here? calguns?) behind Drake relisting:

1. that relisting delay due to Heller 4 assessing if Justice Kennedy had gone squishy,
post Newtown, and if so,

2. then cert denied because the 4 didnt want to risk a decision against 2A,

3 and best to wait for a better case, with better vote count to win.

More likely Drake was relisted twice due to Pantano (a practically identical case) being before the NJ Supreme Court at the same time, SCOTUS decided to let NJSC have a crack at Pantano and review if necessary, but NJSC dropped Pantano as improvidently granted a few weeks after Drake was denied cert (in line with NJ's incorrect view that denied cert is equivalent to an endorsement of the ruling below).

 

[rlc2]

On the other hand...

If that is what is behind the all of the cert denials then I am in agreement. We can always bring new cases later, but once the right is foreclosed with no recourse… we are scar-oohed forever.

Not to get my hopes up too much...it could be just the SCT is so busy with other cases. Per one insider tip, on what SCT considers important by reading tea leaves on what SCOTUSBLOG reports on:

Jackson doesnt show up in SCOTUSBLOGs "Petitions We're Watching", nor "Major Cases" (yet...)
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/petitions-were-watching/

Nor on SCOTUSBLOG's star reporter Lyle Dennisons brand new blog-
http://lyldenlawnews.com/category/cases-in-the-pipeline/

To me, that would infer that as important as this 2A case is to us POTG, its in line and down the priority list behind other much more complex cases, for example: immigration and same sex marriage.

In comparison to another possibility- time to write dissent from denial of cert, I hope this is just a rational workflow vs resources issue- and the "resked without a date" would tend to reinforce that...

I am amazed at the intellectual firepower, Justices and staff, bring to the (crushing to this noobs perspective) work load of the SCT.

I have absolutely no problem being patient, to allow them to give this and other 2A cases their most careful consideration.

 

[rlc2]

Thank you, Kharn. I remembered vaguely some mention of that before, but couldnt recall the case, or timeline - you saved me wondered incorrectly if it had something to do with implications developing on Peruta or Palmer.

I probably mis-remembered that speculation- (the Heller 4 waiting on the squishy 5th?) as being discussed instead on Woolard?

 

[Southwest Chuck]

Jackson doesnt show up in SCOTUSBLOGs "Petitions We're Watching", nor "Major Cases" (yet...)
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/petitions-were-watching/

FYI, If my eyes didn't lie, before it was re-scheduled, Jackson WAS listed as a "petition to watch" on SCOTUS BLOG, yesterday .

 

[press1280]

FYI, If my eyes didn't lie, before it was re-scheduled, Jackson WAS listed as a "petition to watch" on SCOTUS BLOG, yesterday .

It is now, that's for sure. I know a few days ago it wasn't. Perhaps the mere relisting now has put it on the "petitions to watch" list?
It seems unusual to me that SCOTUSblog would put this as a "petition to watch" last second, and then SCOTUS immediately relist. Almost seems like a connection there

 

[press1280]

More likely Drake was relisted twice due to Pantano (a practically identical case) being before the NJ Supreme Court at the same time, SCOTUS decided to let NJSC have a crack at Pantano and review if necessary, but NJSC dropped Pantano as improvidently granted a few weeks after Drake was denied cert (in line with NJ's incorrect view that denied cert is equivalent to an endorsement of the ruling below).

I don't recall either party mentioning Pantano in their briefs. Would SCOTUS go so far as to canvas similar cases in the pipeline (but not on SCOTUS' docket) in order to make their decision?

 

[Kharn]

I don't recall either party mentioning Pantano in their briefs. Would SCOTUS go so far as to canvas similar cases in the pipeline (but not on SCOTUS' docket) in order to make their decision?

The plaintiff mentioned Pantano three times in their petition, so a clerk checking all the cited authorities would have discovered it was appealed to NJSC.

 

[press1280]

The plaintiff mentioned Pantano three times in their petition, so a clerk checking all the cited authorities would have discovered it was appealed to NJSC.

Dam. Must have missed it. Definitely plausible then.