danb
dont be a dumbass
bump. scheduled for conference tomorrow.
Silvester v. Kamala Harris CA 10 Day Wait
- Thread starter MDFF2008
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
Prediction: Relisted
Peaceful John
Active Member
- May 31, 2011
- 239
How else might this case be decided other than by implicating strict scrutiny? Until another J. Gorsuch arrives, that might be a bridge too far. From a lay perspective, Silvester will probably bounce around a while but ultimately be denied cert.
That tells me you think something is being written?
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
*If* there is a relist. There has already been a request for the record, which may be telling, especially since that request was actually before the case was actually considered at conference. If we get a relist (as opposed to a reschedule), then *something* may be getting written.
danb
dont be a dumbass
It wasn't relisted, but we did get a dissent from denial written by Thomas
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022018zor_fd9g.pdf
No one else joined the dissent, which is curious.
This passage is interesting:
I am taking from this that Kennedy is not the only problem justice here.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022018zor_fd9g.pdf
No one else joined the dissent, which is curious.
This passage is interesting:
I am taking from this that Kennedy is not the only problem justice here.
Unfortunately we don't know if perhaps another justice voted to hear the case but didn't join the dissent?
I thought this was a long shot to begin with and I was surprised we even got the dissent.
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
Disappointing to be sure. But it is impossible to know for certain, who voted for cert and who didn’t.
Just the dissent, if you don't want to look at the first 34 pages of the Orders List.
I'll bet it's SJW John Roberts.
- Aug 29, 2016
- 763
I've long suspected Roberts is firmly on the side of the left on this issue as well. He cares too much about being invited to Georgetown cocktail parties. He's a piece of garbage.
- Aug 29, 2016
- 763
I've heard this argument ad nauseam over the past 7 years and I don't agree. On an individual basis, yes. But when the lower courts are engaging in a massive resistance to SCOTUS precedent, and the Supreme Court continually denies cert, on EVERY SINGLE case, it has the effect of telling the lower courts to keep going on doing what they're doing. That then becomes the law, even if the Supreme Court doesn't say so.
As I read it Thomas really lashed out at 9CA and SCOTUS as well. He let go with both barrels and it seemed he was really pissed at this as well. I wonder what really went on behind the scene last week with this in conference also did the shooting in FL change some mindes on this to deny cert as well. I also cant help but think Roberts is trying to take the whole court to the left and screw the right.. Congress needs to intervene but of course they wont
I will say this if my New York taser case loses at the trial court and Second Circuit and the Supreme Court does not take it I will agree with you in light of Caetano
kcbrown
Super Genius
- Jun 16, 2012
- 1,393
When the lower courts are nearly unanimous against the 2nd Amendment, no, there isn't a "big difference" between ruling against the 2nd Amendment and remaining silent in the face of those lower court decisions.
There is a small practical effect: remaining silent leaves open the possibility of later support for the 2nd Amendment. But that practical effect is nonexistent for however long the Court remains silent.
Moreover, if the Court remains silent long enough, then it bootstraps the lower court decisions into "Constitutionality" because it makes those decisions "longstanding".
It's time to face up to the real world. At this point, we have lost, and we will have no hope from this point forward until the Court's composition changes massively in our favor.
- Aug 29, 2016
- 763
The Supreme Court is willing to throw the TASER bone to make it look like they're doing their jobs. I wouldn't read much into that.
Kharn
Ultimate Member
I'm betting the entire problem is Kennedy, no one wants to grant cert without knowing they have five to rule in their favor. A wishy-washy loose cannon would be disastrous.
Thomas is willing to tell it like it is, everyone else is in hiding and either waiting until Kennedy retires or praying Ginsburg doesn't fall down the stairs until a D is back at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Thomas is willing to tell it like it is, everyone else is in hiding and either waiting until Kennedy retires or praying Ginsburg doesn't fall down the stairs until a D is back at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
I find it interesting that they (except for Thomas!) ignored this case. It was a great opportunity to remand it back and tell the lower court to try again. The SC Justices would not have to make the eventual ruling, let the lower courts do the work for them. The question is why do they let this go on this way? Why not force the lower courts to do the work for them. It could be done nice and slow, incrementally, and keep the SCOUS on the side lines.
.
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
Hair-trigger posting... please include more than just the "headline"- Started by Mr H
- Replies: 11
-
-
-
(Duplicate - mods please close) MoCo trans student arrested for threatening school- Started by Lafayette
- Replies: 2
-
