5/11 scotus briefs

777GSOTB · Jun 15, 2020

Boxcab said:
It is a sign of an internal struggle. Enough Justices wanted to hear one, or more, of these cases to keep them alive for almost two years. Now, they drop them all. If there was zero interest, they would have not put in the effort. It is likely that Roberts can not be counted on or trusted.

We want one big "win it all" case, but we won't get that. Our Right was brought to the edge of extinction by a thousand little cuts. That's how we will need to get it back.

So what kind of case would get Roberts attention? What is the lowest common denominator that could get his vote?

Even if Trump wins, it will take a year or more before he will fill a seat. Do we wait?

Just my ramblings…

.

All appropriately denied cert...Thank you Justice Roberts!

Beancounter · Jun 15, 2020

HarryLogan said:
The country is facing anarchy and a bunch of hypocrites in robes trample our rights.

Do you mean like the great pumpkin and his royal decree that bump stocks are machine guns or do you mean the GOP who would have demanded an impeachment had Obama tried the same thing?

Your rights aren't being trampled, they are being surrendered.

HarryLogan · Jun 15, 2020

Beancounter said:
Do you mean like the great pumpkin and his royal decree that bump stocks are machine guns or do you mean the GOP who would have demanded an impeachment had Obama tried the same thing?

Your rights aren't being trampled, they are being surrendered.

So you think this is about Trump, the GOP, and bump stocks?

Mance v Barr
Pena v Horan
Rogers v Grewal
Gould v Lipson
Ciolek v New Jersey
Cheeseman v Polillo
Worman v Healey
Malpasso v Pallozzi
Culp v Raoul
Wilson v Cook County

RepublicOfFranklin · Jun 15, 2020

Thanks Roberts. Zero faith left that government can offer anything other than trampling of rights unless the SC goes 9-0 originalists which won’t ever happen.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kharn · Jun 15, 2020

press1280 said:
I’m really wondering what these procedural issues could be. After all Gorsuch joined in the Peruta dissent but is nowhere to be found for Rogers.

If these procedural issues were that big of an issue, you’d think maybe a concurrence pointing out the issues might be helpful for future cases?

A dissent with three signatures is very rare and the CJ never (?) dissents, I bet they agree on who can sign.

whistlersmother · Jun 15, 2020

Muleskinner said:
Quit making excuses for the Supreme Court. They have declined to hear or have ruled against the Second Amendment almost twice as often as they have ruled in favor of it. The Supreme Court of the United States is not our friend. For those of you so inclined why don't you go ahead and turn your Firearms into the police now since it's obvious eventually we are going to lose our rights completely. Blue States will see this as an affirmation of their gun control laws and will be passing even more tyrannical gun control in the upcoming legislative sessions. Maryland will be no different. For those of you who are inclined to fight prepare yourself. I know that's not most of you here

This.

HaveBlue · Jun 15, 2020

Has anyone else considered that the liberal wing of the court didn't think they could win either?

If I were a liberal justice and I believed that I could get a ruling that would further muddy or limit the 2A, why wouldn't I want that and vote for cert?

Do they vote independently? Is is possible that Kavanaugh, Thomas, Ginsberg and Kagan could have independantly voted for cert because each side thought they would end up with Roberts vote and a favorable ruling? The fact that we are discussing this pre-cert gamesmanship in this manner frankly assumes the Justices (in controversial cases) have substantial leanings before the opening gavel at oral arguments and would rather not play than risk losing.

On a positive note, if Roberts was reliable for the grabbers, they would be the ones voting for cert. If they weren't already invested in an outcome, why not pick one at random. If it ends up being a poor vehicle, rule narrowly.

whistlersmother · Jun 15, 2020

HaveBlue said:
Has anyone else considered that the liberal wing of the court didn't think they could win either?

If I were a liberal justice and I believed that I could get a ruling that would further muddy or limit the 2A, why wouldn't I want that and vote for cert?

Do they vote independently? Is is possible that Kavanaugh, Thomas, Ginsberg and Kagan could have independantly voted for cert because each side thought they would end up with Roberts vote and a favorable ruling? The fact that we are discussing this pre-cert gamesmanship in this manner frankly assumes the Justices (in controversial cases) have substantial leanings before the opening gavel at oral arguments and would rather not play than risk losing.

On a positive note, if Roberts was reliable for the grabbers, they would be the ones voting for cert. If they weren't already invested in an outcome, why not pick one at random. If it ends up being a poor vehicle, rule narrowly.

Hmmm... Roberts is so wishy-washy, NO one trusts him...

What's that say about his legacy?

delaware_export · Jun 15, 2020

So today
SCOTUS say
Yes2Gay
No2A

swamplynx · Jun 15, 2020

Boxcab said:
So what kind of case would get Roberts attention? What is the lowest common denominator that could get his vote?

That was NY Pistol. Such an absurd infringement, that even if the court did decide to hear it on the merits, the opinion could have potentially been so narrow that the practical result would have been the same as the actual result with NYC/NYS folding and SCOTUS mooting the case. We saw how that went.

Pretty clear he doesn't want to expand the right beyond Heller.

jcutonilli · Jun 15, 2020

swamplynx said:
That was NY Pistol. Such an absurd infringement, that even if the court did decide to hear it on the merits, the opinion could have potentially been so narrow that the practical result would have been the same as the actual result with NYC/NYS folding and SCOTUS mooting the case. We saw how that went.

Pretty clear he doesn't want to expand the right beyond Heller.

Where is it documented that Roberts does not want to expand the right beyond Heller?

Kharn · Jun 15, 2020

whistlersmother said:
Hmmm... Roberts is so wishy-washy, NO one trusts him...

What's that say about his legacy?

I think Roberts might be looking from a position more about not wanting major political uncertainty (a cert grant and the year waiting for an opinion) while he's watching cities burn. He seems very sensitive to the op ed page and the cocktail circuit.

Maybe another case that percolates by the long conference, or early in next term, will be granted and can still be resolved by June 2021 if the civil unrest calms enough.

HaveBlue · Jun 15, 2020

I guess Roberts did guarantee A second Trump term.

ComeGet · Jun 16, 2020

HaveBlue said:
Has anyone else considered that the liberal wing of the court didn't think they could win either?

If I were a liberal justice and I believed that I could get a ruling that would further muddy or limit the 2A, why wouldn't I want that and vote for cert?

Do they vote independently? Is is possible that Kavanaugh, Thomas, Ginsberg and Kagan could have independantly voted for cert because each side thought they would end up with Roberts vote and a favorable ruling? The fact that we are discussing this pre-cert gamesmanship in this manner frankly assumes the Justices (in controversial cases) have substantial leanings before the opening gavel at oral arguments and would rather not play than risk losing.

On a positive note, if Roberts was reliable for the grabbers, they would be the ones voting for cert. If they weren't already invested in an outcome, why not pick one at random. If it ends up being a poor vehicle, rule narrowly.

Thanks for pointing this out. Even a small ray of sunshine is appreciated in these times.

:thumbsup:

smkranz · Jun 16, 2020

delaware_export said:
So today
SCOTUS say
Yes2Gay
No2A

As disappointing as this Court has been (yeah let’s actively legislate from the bench on gay and trans rights, but not deal with a single ****** 2A case), this somber but clever little poem requires an MDS Honorable Mention.

NRA Life ∙ MSI ∙ MD Designated Collector ∙ Certified Beer & Mead Judge

daNattyFatty · Jun 16, 2020

HaveBlue said:
Has anyone else considered that the liberal wing of the court didn't think they could win either?

If I were a liberal justice and I believed that I could get a ruling that would further muddy or limit the 2A, why wouldn't I want that and vote for cert?

Do they vote independently? Is is possible that Kavanaugh, Thomas, Ginsberg and Kagan could have independantly voted for cert because each side thought they would end up with Roberts vote and a favorable ruling? The fact that we are discussing this pre-cert gamesmanship in this manner frankly assumes the Justices (in controversial cases) have substantial leanings before the opening gavel at oral arguments and would rather not play than risk losing.

On a positive note, if Roberts was reliable for the grabbers, they would be the ones voting for cert. If they weren't already invested in an outcome, why not pick one at random. If it ends up being a poor vehicle, rule narrowly.

I’ll admit it. That’s a good point that I haven’t considered.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Kharn · Jun 16, 2020

They go in ascending sequential order of seniority by voice vote.

HoCoShooter · Jun 16, 2020

HaveBlue said:
Has anyone else considered that the liberal wing of the court didn't think they could win either?

If I were a liberal justice and I believed that I could get a ruling that would further muddy or limit the 2A, why wouldn't I want that and vote for cert?

Do they vote independently? Is is possible that Kavanaugh, Thomas, Ginsberg and Kagan could have independantly voted for cert because each side thought they would end up with Roberts vote and a favorable ruling? The fact that we are discussing this pre-cert gamesmanship in this manner frankly assumes the Justices (in controversial cases) have substantial leanings before the opening gavel at oral arguments and would rather not play than risk losing.

On a positive note, if Roberts was reliable for the grabbers, they would be the ones voting for cert. If they weren't already invested in an outcome, why not pick one at random. If it ends up being a poor vehicle, rule narrowly.

This reminds me of posts by people still convinced that Trump is brilliant and just trolling everyone - I wish you were right, but it's hard to see it as anything but grasping for straws.

pcfixer · Jun 16, 2020

HaveBlue said:
I guess Roberts did guarantee A second Trump term.

AND most likely get a least 1 more conservative...text justice on the court...Maybe 2 :thumbsup:

danb · Jun 16, 2020

The progressive wing does not need to vote to take a case. The interest balancing dissent in Heller has become the norm in lower courts, the lower courts are doing most of the heavy lifting. They can wait a while, decades even, then simply say Heller was a bad decision don't rely on it. That is how other precedents have been unwound.

By progressive wing, I am coming around to the view Roberts is simply wobbly. He seems much more concerned with the public image of the court than the actual law. Lots of old school 1980s/90s Republicans thought that the assault weapons ban was ok and that public carry was bad, esp if blacks were doing the public carrying.

5/11 scotus briefs

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Active Member

Active Member

HarryLogan, also known as MesWoore

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Peace through strength

HaveBlue

Peace through strength

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

HaveBlue

Ultimate Member

Certified Caveman

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics