IL Lawmaker Goes Ballistic

[randian]

2:40 in the video, the Dem saying that SCOTUS not taking the NY case means that "they're fine with may issue." Pardon me if I'm wrong, but isn't it Constitutional Law 101 that lack of cert is not precedent, and definitely not binding one way or the other?

There's a difference between the legal implications of SCOTUS inaction and the logical implications of it.

 

[JMangle]

The jack ass actually made the argument that the denial of cert by the Supreme Court meant that the Supreme Court agrees with the Second Circuit's decision in the New York case. What nonsense.

Did you say nonsense?

 

[Brooklyn]

There's a difference between the legal implications of SCOTUS inaction and the logical implications of it.

I think you mean political implications. The logical implication is that they want to settle Chicago first that is strike a total ban, if they persist, and get on record that the right exists outside the home first. Then think about standard of review. If you think about it, it is sort of a engineering mind set --one step at a time ....

 

[frogman68]

2:40 in the video, the Dem saying that SCOTUS not taking the NY case means that "they're fine with may issue." Pardon me if I'm wrong, but isn't it Constitutional Law 101 that lack of cert is not precedent, and definitely not binding one way or the other?

Curious comment about consideration of the constitutionality of a bill being "nonsense," with the implication that no one but the supreme court can actually understand the constitution. I believe Frosh's behavior in the senate committee with SB281 was very similar.

Tom

He says they don't have the capacity to interpret the constitution, yet he thinks he can pick and choose what constitutional rights he can decide for others to be able to exercise?

they all went to gansler's class of Constitutional Law

 

[zombiehunter]

So wait...what's up with the may issue court case?