Silvester v. Kamala Harris CA 10 Day Wait

Kharn · Dec 14, 2016

I wonder if Thomas is taking tips from Henderson in the DC Circuit and will weasel his way onto every 2A panel.

motorcoachdoug · Dec 15, 2016

I would not put it past him to do just that. Will be very interesting when Trump appoints a couple of very friendly 2A justices to SCOTUS and see what they do then. Wonder if Thomas or Henderson will blow a fuse or 3 if SCOTUS starts to overturn their anti 2A rulings.

Allen65 · Dec 15, 2016

motorcoachdoug said:
I would not put it past him to do just that. Will be very interesting when Trump appoints a couple of very friendly 2A justices to SCOTUS and see what they do then. Wonder if Thomas or Henderson will blow a fuse or 3 if SCOTUS starts to overturn their anti 2A rulings.

While the SC vacancy gets much of the public attention, keep in mind that very, very few cases ever get cert. The more important, but much less visible, appointments will be at the appellate levels. That's where most of the relevant cases actually get decided and the real change will be made.

krucam · Dec 15, 2016

Allen65 said:
While the SC vacancy gets much of the public attention, keep in mind that very, very few cases ever get cert. The more important, but much less visible, appointments will be at the appellate levels. That's where most of the relevant cases actually get decided and the real change will be made.

Word...District and Circuit appointments will have much greater impact...

jrwhitt · Dec 15, 2016

I'm wondering what the possibilities are for replacements on the Ninth Circus and if Trump will be able to have an impact there ?

swinokur · Dec 15, 2016

Federal judges serve "during good behavior" per COTUS ..AKA lifetime appointments

Good luck
.

fightinbluhen51 · Dec 20, 2016

jrwhitt said:
I'm wondering what the possibilities are for replacements on the Ninth Circus and if Trump will be able to have an impact there ?

swinokur said:
Federal judges serve "during good behavior" per COTUS ..AKA lifetime appointments

Good luck
.

When was the last time impeachment proceedings were levied against a judge, let alone an appellate judge?

swinokur · Dec 20, 2016

Alcee Hastings?

1989

fightinbluhen51 · Dec 20, 2016

swinokur said:
Alcee Hastings?

1989

And the rich irony is, he went on to become a congressman.

jrwhitt · Dec 20, 2016

swinokur said:
Federal judges serve "during good behavior" per COTUS ..AKA lifetime appointments

Good luck
.

I was actually thinking retirements and potential vacancies rather than kicking them out (although I wouldn't turn my nose up at that if it happened)

kshaw · Dec 22, 2016

Looks like there are several vacancies to fill: http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/judicial-vacancies

Elliotte · Apr 13, 2017

Looks like this got missed, unless it's in another thread I missed.

Petition for En Banc was denied http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...rder-Denying-Petition-for-Panel-Rehearing.pdf

Now the plan is to petition for cert https://www.calgunsfoundation.org/s..._california_s_waiting_period_gun_control_laws

wolfwood · Sep 1, 2017

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n...r_Cert_Petition_Final_with_App.pdf?1504284264

cert petition

calling esqappellate
what do you think

GlocksAndPatriots · Sep 1, 2017

wolfwood said:
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n...r_Cert_Petition_Final_with_App.pdf?1504284264

cert petition

calling esqappellate
what do you think

I know you didn't ask me, but as an attorney, this is the first time I've ever seen an appellant in a brief outright accuse the lower court of bad faith. It's a long overdue development, in my opinion.

wolfwood · Sep 1, 2017

GlocksAndPatriots said:
I know you didn't ask me, but as an attorney, this is the first time I've ever seen an appellant in a brief outright accuse the lower court of bad faith. It's a long overdue development, in my opinion.

I noticed that myself. While I appreciate the gumption, my issue with it is that the Supreme Court is not there to error correct a pattern of conduct. It is there to rule on the instant case. So I don't know how relevant it is that the Ninth Circuit did x in a separate case.

kcbrown · Sep 1, 2017

If it is not the Supreme Court's role to correct a pattern of judicial infidelity to Supreme Court precedent on the part of the lower courts, then to what entity does that duty belong?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

wolfwood · Sep 1, 2017

kcbrown said:
If it is not the Supreme Court's role to correct a pattern of judicial infidelity to Supreme Court precedent on the part of the lower courts, then to what entity does that duty belong?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The President and Congress by replacing the Circuit judges.

The Supreme Court's role is to deal with the matter in front of them. Which could mean granting cert every time a circuit screws up but that is neither here nor there.

kcbrown · Sep 1, 2017

wolfwood said:
The President and Congress by replacing the Circuit judges.

The Supreme Court's role is to deal with the matter in front of them. Which could mean granting cert every time a circuit screws up but that is neither here nor there.

So let me get this straight. The Supreme Court's role is NOT to reverse lower court cases that conflict with Supreme Court precedent???

Because that is precisely what it means for the Court to address infidelity to its precedents. It doesn't have any other mechanism available to it.

To say that it doesn't have that duty is tantamount to saying that it has no duty at all. It is also tantamount to saying that Supreme Court precedent is optional (i.e, "persuasive, not binding") to the lower courts.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

wolfwood · Sep 1, 2017

kcbrown said:
So let me get this straight. The Supreme Court's role is NOT to reverse lower court cases that conflict with Supreme Court precedent???

Because that is precisely what it means for the Court to address infidelity to its precedents. It doesn't have any other mechanism available to it.

To say that it doesn't have that duty is tantamount to saying that it has no duty at all. It is also tantamount to saying that Supreme Court precedent is optional (i.e, "persuasive, not binding") to the lower courts.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is not what I said or meant. I said the Court should only look to the case directly in front of it. But you know what. I am going to give this one to you KC because if I don't this will drag out for several pages and it is far to hot in SD for that today.

kcbrown · Sep 1, 2017

wolfwood said:
That is not what I said or meant. I said the Court should only look to the case directly in front of it. But you know what. I am going to give this one to you KC because if I don't this will drag out for several pages and it is far to hot in SD for that today.

Ah. I agree the Court should look only at the case in front of it. But to do that, it has to grant cert. I assert that the Court has an implicit duty to grant cert to cases where the lower court has contradicted Supreme Court precedent, precisely because it has a duty as the final judicial authority to ensure that the lower courts do their jobs properly.

We may be saying roughly the same thing in different ways.

Regardless, I agree 100% with you on the heat! It's 115 degrees here today.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Silvester v. Kamala Harris CA 10 Day Wait

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

In a State of Bliss

Attachments

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

In a State of Bliss

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

Active Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Banned

Ultimate Member

Super Genius

Ultimate Member

Super Genius

Ultimate Member

Super Genius

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics