Mr H
Unincited Co-Conservative
So their new tactic is to accuse "tactics"...
Got it...
Got it...
Lost..please translate..
A big part of the problem is that since 1897 "public safety" has been used to overrule individual rights almost without limit, thanks to a Supreme Court case that the current Court and none before it have never bothered to completely overturn (despite it supposedly being reversed in 1954, the partial reversal was VERY narrowly applied) and obey almost without question today even while it is considered one of the most hated decisions in history. The ruling stated that police and state governments have a prerogative to abridge individual rights in the interest of public safety, and that surrender of rights is an obligatory payment in exchange for the benefits of being part of society.Sounds like a stalling tactic to me!! My wish is they would own up to fundamental constitutional rights that are NOT overriden by the words 'public safety'.
A big part of the problem is that since 1897 "public safety" has been used to overrule individual rights almost without limit, thanks to a Supreme Court case that the current Court and none before it have never bothered to completely overturn (despite it supposedly being reversed in 1954, the partial reversal was VERY narrowly applied) and obey almost without question today even while it is considered one of the most hated decisions in history. The ruling stated that police and state governments have a prerogative to abridge individual rights in the interest of public safety, and that surrender of rights is an obligatory payment in exchange for the benefits of being part of society.
What 1897 case are you referring to?
I can read between some lines. Did Gura's affirmance motion make it harder/impossible to combine the district's rulings on appeal?If the appeal is not held in abeyance, the case will proceed on inefficient and incomplete tracks in both this Court and the district court. For example, if the district court determines that it has jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ motions and rules on the merits of them, any resulting appeals should be consolidated with the present appeal. But consolidation might not be possible at that point, given that plaintiffs filed a motion for summary affirmance one day after this appeal was docketed.
From DC's motion:
I can read between some lines. Did Gura's affirmance motion make it harder/impossible to combine the district's rulings on appeal?
If so, it makes more sense why he did it. Would it "freeze" the initial ruling pending disposition of the affirmance motion? That means DC would have to file yet another appeal on the District Court's subsequent rulings (a PI, for instance) that would hinge largely on whether the initial ruling was correct. So instead of DC consolidating all those eggs (schedule items) into one basket, they have to handle them serially. That means more time, which DC does not have.
Paging the smart people...
If any of the above makes sense, I wonder how it matters when the Circuit is just going to stay pending appeal, anyway.
Also, DC is moving to make permanent the new temp laws. How the hell are they going to claim harm when they passed a law that effectively shutters the carry option? I know they can appeal the original ruling regardless, but how do they argue that it must be stayed when they created "reasonable" regulations to avoid it?
So history, off the top of my head:
- Gura files Palmer
- The Earth spins around the Sun far too many times...
- DC loses
- DC gets 90 day stay to pass "reasonable regulations"
- DC passes temp law to counter loss, while asking for a reconsideration of the ruling by the District Court
- DC notices it will appeal ruling
- Gura asks District Court for injunction against new DC sham-wow laws, as unconstitutional under the District Court ruling
- District Court denies reconsideration
- Gura asks for affirmance by Appellate Court (Circuit Court), freezing the original ruling
- DC claims District Court cannot enforce it's own laws, makes judge laugh (not really). Judge says "two more weeks" (really) for DC to defend new laws to him.
- DC notices to Circuit that they still want to appeal, but that everyone should wait for District Court to rule...so please sit on our appeal, for now. Also admit Gura outfoxed them re: consolidation because of affirmance motion (I have no idea why this matters)
- DC announces the new temp laws will become permanent, but they are already too late for them to take effect before the 90-day stay runs out
Going Forward:
- Assume District Court finds new temp laws invalid, orders injunction
- DC gets a permanent stay pending appeal
- ???
- Profit!!!
There is an angle in here I am not seeing, assuming the things I think I already saw were not seen though some derivative of Alice's looking-glass.
(Please tell me someone caught one of the oldest internet memes, somewhere above. I am already feeling old today and don't' want to be alone here...)
From DC's motion:
I can read between some lines. Did Gura's affirmance motion make it harder/impossible to combine the district's rulings on appeal?
If so, it makes more sense why he did it. Would it "freeze" the initial ruling pending disposition of the affirmance motion? That means DC would have to file yet another appeal on the District Court's subsequent rulings (a PI, for instance) that would hinge largely on whether the initial ruling was correct. So instead of DC consolidating all those eggs (schedule items) into one basket, they have to handle them serially. That means more time, which DC does not have.
Paging the smart people...
If any of the above makes sense, I wonder how it matters when the Circuit is just going to stay pending appeal, anyway.
Also, DC is moving to make permanent the new temp laws. How the hell are they going to claim harm when they passed a law that effectively shutters the carry option? I know they can appeal the original ruling regardless, but how do they argue that it must be stayed when they created "reasonable" regulations to avoid it?
So history, off the top of my head:
- Gura files Palmer
- The Earth spins around the Sun far too many times...
- DC loses
- DC gets 90 day stay to pass "reasonable regulations"
- DC passes temp law to counter loss, while asking for a reconsideration of the ruling by the District Court
- DC notices it will appeal ruling
- Gura asks District Court for injunction against new DC sham-wow laws, as unconstitutional under the District Court ruling
- District Court denies reconsideration
- Gura asks for affirmance by Appellate Court (Circuit Court), freezing the original ruling
- DC claims District Court cannot enforce it's own laws, makes judge laugh (not really). Judge says "two more weeks" (really) for DC to defend new laws to him.
- DC notices to Circuit that they still want to appeal, but that everyone should wait for District Court to rule...so please sit on our appeal, for now. Also admit Gura outfoxed them re: consolidation because of affirmance motion (I have no idea why this matters)
- DC announces the new temp laws will become permanent, but they are already too late for them to take effect before the 90-day stay runs out
Going Forward:
- Assume District Court finds new temp laws invalid, orders injunction
- DC gets a permanent stay pending appeal
- ???
- Profit!!!
There is an angle in here I am not seeing, assuming the things I think I already saw were not seen though some derivative of Alice's looking-glass.
(Please tell me someone caught one of the oldest internet memes, somewhere above. I am already feeling old today and don't' want to be alone here...)
I feel like personally the most confusing part in these judicial threads is trying to figure out whether "two weeks" is literal or figurative.
1. Yes.I feel like I'm listening to Vizzini's speech about the poisoned cup. My head is truly spinning trying to separate all of the avenues this case is going. From what I'm picking up, I see three topics that are going on:
1) The initial case which ruled DC's law Unconstitutional.
Has this ruling been appealed? (I'm getting that it hasn't, only that DC says it may)
2) The new DC law meant to deal with the initial ruling. This law is what we are waiting for further information by DC to send to Scullin by tomorrow, Dec 4. Scullin can either rule is does or does not conform to his ruling, correct?
3) a circuit court appeal has been filed, but I don't fully understand what this filing is. Is it to try and suspend the 90 days Scullin gave DC to create a carry law?
I think I need a flowchart.
1. Yes.
2. Yes
3. No. The "appeal" simply invokes the DC Circuit's jurisdiction to review the injunction of the original law. A "stay" motion, if filed in the DC Circuit, (it hasn't been, yet), would stay (hold it ineffective) the operation of the injunction pending appeal during the entire course of the appeal, viz., until the D.C. Circuit decides the case.
DC obfuscation strategy seems to be working.
If they can't have murky laws, they will definitely tie everything in a knot with the courts.
Thank you! (2 out of 3 ain't bad for an Aggie!)
Esq, in your opinion, why has DC not asked for a stay? explain their thinking if you have some insight. I sure don't