NY ordered to answer to SCOTUS

[swinokur]

I think the thing about it is this, the supreme court, usually just steps in on stuff that’s previously been ruled nearly identical. In this case, even though we find it overstepping, the Supreme Court hasn’t actually ruled on a similar law yet.

The decision seems to be a clear direction to the appeals court that they had BEST hurry on this as they don’t think the stay of the PI was correct. But they will give the appeals court the courtesy of HURRYING to hear and decide on an appeal once the district court decides.

I am mad that the appeals court decision wasn’t overturned. Even if I get what I think SCOTUS reasoning is.

It does sound SCOTUS will be willing to hear anything coming out of this on a fast track if the appeals court gets this wrong.

What was Bruen then? SCOTUS gave examples of what is NOT a sensitive place

 

[smokey]

And right on cue, the NY Attorney General makes a statement about how pleased she is that the Supreme Court is "allowing" the state to continue stomping on NYer's constitutional rights:

https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2023/attorney-general-james-releases-statement-us-supreme-court-decision-allowing

NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James today released the following statement after the United States Supreme Court ruled to allow New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) to remain in effect pending appeal. The Supreme Court upheld a stay that was issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Antonyuk v. Nigrelli in December 2022.

“We have a right to enact commonsense measures to protect our communities, and I am pleased with the Supreme Court’s decision to allow New York’s concealed carry gun law to remain in effect. Too many New Yorkers are plagued by gun violence, and we know that basic gun laws help save lives every day. My office will continue to use every tool at our disposal to protect New Yorkers and defend our responsible gun laws.”

As a result of today’s decision, the full CCIA is in effect. The CCIA took effect in September 2022, in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The law strengthens requirements for concealed carry permits, prohibits guns in sensitive places, requires individuals with concealed carry permits to request a property owner’s consent to carry on their premises, enhances safe storage requirements, and requires background checks on all ammunition purchases.

Good, I want them to spike the football as hard as they can. Really poke the Supreme Court bear in the nuts. The SC, specifically Thomas and Alito, are champing at the bit to get these novel considerations in front of them. Attacks in litigation have always been a "fail as fast as you can" game to push decisions up.

 

[lazarus]

What was Bruen then? SCOTUS gave examples of what is NOT a sensitive place

Sure. But the decision itself didn’t directly deal with sensitive places. Unfortunately.

 

[Allen65]

Sure. But the decision itself didn’t directly deal with sensitive places. Unfortunately.

No, but it did telegraph how the majority would decide on a sensitive places case.

 

[whistlersmother]

Second Circuit will sit on it until SCOTUS changes to liberal, then rule against plantiffs.

 

[Boxcab]

Second Circuit will sit on it until SCOTUS changes to liberal, then rule against plantiffs.

Yes, that is exactly what SCOTUS is saying here...

.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

 

[Blacksmith101]

Do not forget that Chief Justice Roberts in his report on the status of the federal courts for 2022 specifically wrote about the Brown vs Board of Education case. Probably another signal to the lower courts that the Supreme Court takes particular notice of Civil Rights Cases.

 

[whistlersmother]

Yes, that is exactly what SCOTUS is saying here...

.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

And what is "reasonable time"?

2 weeks?
2 years?
2 decades?

Sorry, but what he wrote is meaningless.

 

[motorcoachdoug]

Even tho it hurts me to say it, i would give 2CA 3 weeks to explain their actions and if within that time frame they do not, then again appeal to SCOTUS saying hey we gave 2CA time to explain their actions and they refused to do so and present it to Thomas since Sotomayor has already had her chance.

 

[teratos]

Even tho it hurts me to say it, i would give 2CA 3 weeks to explain their actions and if within that time frame they do not, then again appeal to SCOTUS saying hey we gave 2CA time to explain their actions and they refused to do so and present it to Thomas since Sotomayor has already had her chance.

SCOTUS, in its’ entirety, said they were giving the Second Circuit a chance to rule on it. If you read between the lines, SCOTUS said “don’t tread on me”.

 

[ironpony]

The wheels of justice turn slow, as the video's 10 minutes of time to get out 1 minute of info shows. That was painful but "reasonable time".

"We'll give you time to no longer Tread on Me."

$2 on Summertime to place.

 

[Inigoes]

And what is "reasonable time"?

2 weeks?
2 years?
2 decades?

Sorry, but what he wrote is meaningless.

Days for the 2CA to put out its reasoning and hearing schedule.

A couple months for the hearing to be conducted.

 

[Boxcab]

And what is "reasonable time"?

2 weeks?
2 years?
2 decades?

Sorry, but what he wrote is meaningless.

Somewhere between the first two, I'd suspect. It depends how fast the lawyers can pull together new filings and get them submitted. The judge will take another couple weeks to make a ruling.. just for the injunction.

As my signature reads, it has taken us since the 1930s with nothing pro 2A to be adjudicated. Now we have 3 SCOTUS cases righting the wrong. Based on the Civil Rights analog, it will take 50+ years for it to flush through the system. I expect we will both be long dead before nirvana is achieved with the 2A.


.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

 

[lazarus]

No, but it did telegraph how the majority would decide on a sensitive places case.

Complete agreement.

But, unless I am misunderstanding this, what happened was the district court issued a PI with a scathing opinion. The state appealed it and the appeals court stupidly stayed the PI, pending hearing the case on the PI, and then the plaintiffs appealed to SCOTUS that stay and SCOTUS basically said, "we won't act right now, but the appeals court had best hurry the F up and hear that PI appeal".

I think the logic is that the appeals court needs to hear the preliminary injunction request ASAP. None of this is really on the merits, where the district court hasn't even decided.

I kind of do suspect this is going to be a cluster F though where the appeals court is possibly going to decide against a PI once they hear it (is it the same 3 judges who will hear the actual case on the preliminary injunction?), and then it is back to SCOTUS to hear about the actual PI, rather than hearing the case on the stay of the district court PI. Whereupon, SCOTUS may decide at that point, the Appeals court got it wrong, and place a PI.

I think what is happening is SCOTUS is just saying they aren't going to step in on something like "appeals court internal business" for something like a stay as the appeals court hasn't even heard the merits of PI arguments. But once it is a decision, SCOTUS very well may and will step back in. They will also step back in if it looks like the appeals court is not expeditiously hearing the appeal and trying to drag their feet.

All of that sounds a lot like "institutionalism and this court will not act with tyranny over the lesser courts. But also, appeals, you done ****** up and FIX THIS now".

 

[swinokur]

Or they can simply lift the stay and allow the case to proceed

 

[Boxcab]

Or they can simply lift the stay and allow the case to proceed

... at an accelerated pace, as fitting for a violation of an enumerated Right.



.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

 

[Blacksmith101]

When the boss says "I am not going to interfere but you better get this right, and don't drag your feet." you better get it right, with all the "i"'s dotted and "t"'s crossed, get it done toot sweet, and have a darned good reason for everything you did and the way you did it.

You won't like it if the boss isn't happy with your work.

 

[JPG]

When the boss says "I am not going to interfere but you better get this right, and don't drag your feet." you better get it right, with all the "i"'s dotted and "t"'s crossed, get it done toot sweet, and have a darned good reason for everything you did and the way you did it.

You won't like it if the boss isn't happy with your work.

This is the government not the private sector. Not sure the government runs like that. What I've seen over the years with the 2A cases is that the legislatures and courts don't care what the SCOTUS has decided. They are going to continue to make laws and lower courts agree with the new laws that are the same as what the SCOTUS just said they can't do.

 

[KingClown]

I think Thomas is playing the long game and we may stand to get some more precedent out of this so instead of just NY it helps all of us in socialist replublics like MD and CA and others

 

[eruby]

And what is "reasonable time"?

2 weeks?
2 years?
2 decades?

eruby DGAF as WWNC