Commonwealth v. Caetano

Southwest Chuck · Jan 21, 2016

Blacksmith101 said:
No he is full of knowledge. You may not like the answer but it is still the answer.

You must have missed the wink there Grumpy ......

press1280 · Jan 21, 2016

esqappellate said:
None

Just curious why that's the case, when I've seen other dockets showing district courts records? Is it that too much time has already passed?

esqappellate · Jan 22, 2016

press1280 said:
Just curious why that's the case, when I've seen other dockets showing district courts records? Is it that too much time has already passed?

The asked for and already go the record from the Supreme Court of Mass. That record includes, necessarily, the record in the lower courts since that is what the court reviewed in issuing its judgment in the case.

press1280 · Jan 25, 2016

Nothing on today's order list.

DC-W · Jan 25, 2016

Are they even meeting today?

jrosenberger · Jan 25, 2016

DC-W said:
Are they even meeting today?

Yes, they released an order list at 930AM today. Nothing about Caetano, so now we wait until Feb 22 to hear anything (next conference is the 19th).

Kharn · Jan 25, 2016

Two per curiams today:

Amgen (3.5 pages):
Oct 7 2015 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 30, 2015.
Oct 14 2015 Response Requested . (Due November 13, 2015)
Nov 13 2015 Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al.
Nov 13 2015 Brief of respondents Steve Harris, et al. in opposition filed.
Dec 1 2015 Reply of petitioners Amgen Inc., et al. filed.
Dec 2 2015 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 8, 2016.
Jan 11 2016 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 15, 2016.
Jan 19 2016 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 22, 2016.

James (1.5 pages):
Nov 9 2015 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 24, 2015.
Nov 13 2015 Response Requested . (Due December 14, 2015)
Dec 9 2015 Brief of respondents City of Boise, Idaho, et al. in opposition filed.
Dec 18 2015 Reply of petitioner Melene James filed.
Dec 22 2015 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 8, 2016.
Jan 11 2016 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 15, 2016.
Jan 19 2016 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 22, 2016.

Friedman went to 7 conferences, Friday was Caetano's 8th conference...

danb · Jan 25, 2016

DC-W said:
Are they even meeting today?

evidently, orders and opinions are out today so I guess so. I am a little surprised honestly.

jrosenberger · Jan 25, 2016

danb said:
evidently, orders and opinions are out today so I guess so. I am a little surprised honestly.

Discussion at ScotusBlog said no one can remember the court closing for weather, and at least some justices think they can't. Today was just orders and opinions, so no one (lawyers or litigants) had to fly in.

Kharn · Jan 25, 2016

DC-W said:
Are they even meeting today?

The Court is releasing opinions now according to SCOTUSBlog, guess at least 9 people made it to work in DC today.

Kharn · Jan 25, 2016

jrosenberger said:
Discussion at ScotusBlog said no one can remember the court closing for weather, and at least some justices think they can't. Today was just orders and opinions, so no one (lawyers or litigants) had to fly in.

I thought there was a case in the last few years where an argument had to be rescheduled due to weather? Maybe the court was open but an advocate was stuck elsewhere.

esqappellate · Jan 25, 2016

No order on this case today. Next possible date: Feb. 22.

Knuckle Dragger · Jan 25, 2016

esqappellate said:
No order on this case today. Next possible date: Feb. 22.

It hasn't been relisted yet and there's the possibility that it could be included in miscellaneous orders prior to Feb. 22.

At this point, the justices have had more than enough time to pen a dissent. I think there's got to be more going on.

aireyc · Jan 25, 2016

Knuckle Dragger said:
It hasn't been relisted yet and there's the possibility that it could be included in miscellaneous orders prior to Feb. 22.

At this point, the justices have had more than enough time to pen a dissent. I think there's got to be more going on.

Relists will come closer to conference, so probably mid-February.

Master_P · Jan 25, 2016

Knuckle Dragger said:
It hasn't been relisted yet and there's the possibility that it could be included in miscellaneous orders prior to Feb. 22.

At this point, the justices have had more than enough time to pen a dissent. I think there's got to be more going on.

Quite possible. I took a look at the calendar and had a few thoughts worth sharing...

While the SCOTUS docket highlights eight instances where this case was "distributed for conference", it was likely given consideration at six. The entry from 7/2 listing the 9/28 conference was insignificant since reply briefs were submitted in October. They'd have nothing to discuss.

Similarly, they requested the record from MA on the Monday following the 12/4 conference. They received the records on 12/14, so there would have been nothing to discuss at the 12/11 conference. That means they talked about this case at two conferences, decided to request the record on the third conference, took a long winter break, and have been discussing the case at the past three conferences.

According to oyez, there are eighteen undecided cases which have received a cert grant this term, including the recent immigration case - which is very likely to get oral argument since it's so high profile. According to the courts calendar, there are four weeks left this term to schedule oral arguments in pending cases. Looking at the historical trends for the past few terms, the court usually hears 4-5 cases per week. In other words, they might hear argument in twenty more cases this term, and have at least eighteen to decide. One of those eighteen is sure to get an argument slot (the immigration case). That leaves seventeen possible cases that remain to be heard.

There is a chance some of those seventeen could be resolved via PC, but probably not many. Given the number of cases on their plate, the number of time slots for oral argument, and the number of high profile cases left to decide, it seems more likely that this case - if granted - would be slated for the next term.

If not, then a stinging dissent will be in the works. If history repeats itself, Scalia and Thomas would be willing to grant cert. It's possible they requested the records to help persuade two of the Heller-5 to sign on.

I don't know that the election has much to do with scheduling. They issued the Heller opinion in June of 2008, just a few months before the election. I think McDonald was issued in June of 2010, just before mid-term elections.

esqappellate · Jan 26, 2016

Knuckle Dragger said:
It hasn't been relisted yet and there's the possibility that it could be included in miscellaneous orders prior to Feb. 22.

At this point, the justices have had more than enough time to pen a dissent. I think there's got to be more going on.

I could be wrong, but as I read the Court's calendar, no orders will be released until Feb. 22. As to what's going on? I have no idea, but I agree, a dissent from a denial is a real possibility. There could be some back and forth between chambers on that. Or perhaps even a per curiam reversal! Wouldn't that be a hoot.

esqappellate · Jan 26, 2016

Master_P said:
Quite possible. I took a look at the calendar and had a few thoughts worth sharing...

While the SCOTUS docket highlights eight instances where this case was "distributed for conference", it was likely given consideration at six. The entry from 7/2 listing the 9/28 conference was insignificant since reply briefs were submitted in October. They'd have nothing to discuss.

Similarly, they requested the record from MA on the Monday following the 12/4 conference. They received the records on 12/14, so there would have been nothing to discuss at the 12/11 conference. That means they talked about this case at two conferences, decided to request the record on the third conference, took a long winter break, and have been discussing the case at the past three conferences.

According to oyez, there are eighteen undecided cases which have received a cert grant this term, including the recent immigration case - which is very likely to get oral argument since it's so high profile. According to the courts calendar, there are four weeks left this term to schedule oral arguments in pending cases. Looking at the historical trends for the past few terms, the court usually hears 4-5 cases per week. In other words, they might hear argument in twenty more cases this term, and have at least eighteen to decide. One of those eighteen is sure to get an argument slot (the immigration case). That leaves seventeen possible cases that remain to be heard.

There is a chance some of those seventeen could be resolved via PC, but probably not many. Given the number of cases on their plate, the number of time slots for oral argument, and the number of high profile cases left to decide, it seems more likely that this case - if granted - would be slated for the next term.

If not, then a stinging dissent will be in the works. If history repeats itself, Scalia and Thomas would be willing to grant cert. It's possible they requested the records to help persuade two of the Heller-5 to sign on.

I don't know that the election has much to do with scheduling. They issued the Heller opinion in June of 2008, just a few months before the election. I think McDonald was issued in June of 2010, just before mid-term elections.

You are quite correct that is too late for argument in this case to be heard this term. We won't get an order at the earliest until Feb. 22. A cert grant has to be no later than mid-January to be assured of a place on the argument calendar. There is always the possibility of a per curiam decision, but that that does seem remote, given the questions presented (including whether the 2A applies outside the home)

danb · Jan 26, 2016

esqappellate said:
I could be wrong, but as I read the Court's calendar, no orders will be released until Feb. 22. As to what's going on? I have no idea, but I agree, a dissent from a denial is a real possibility. There could be some back and forth between chambers on that. Or perhaps even a per curiam reversal! Wouldn't that be a hoot.

The dissent from denials of the previous two did not take this long, so I am not sure what they would be going back and forth on.

Kharn · Jan 26, 2016

danb said:
The dissent from denials of the previous two did not take this long, so I am not sure what they would be going back and forth on.

Thomas and Alito are the only justices who haven't written opinions for the October sitting with two opinions not released, the CJ could be riding Thomas to get his opinion out and back burner the dissent.

Master_P · Jan 26, 2016

Kharn said:
Thomas and Alito are the only justices who haven't written opinions for the October sitting with two opinions not released, the CJ could be riding Thomas to get his opinion out and back burner the dissent.

Interesting finding.

What makes this case interesting is the number of different angles they could take to address the scope of the 2A.

-Does the 2A apply to homeless persons?
-Does the 2A protect less-than lethal devices? i.e. what is the scope and standard of review for "arms" and their lineal descendants/restrictions?

They could answer a lot of REALLY big questions with this case!

Commonwealth v. Caetano

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

A Calguns Interloper.. ;)

Ultimate Member

President, MSI

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

President, MSI

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Member

President, MSI

President, MSI

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics