Kolbe en banc decision

[esqappellate]

Everyone's Amici except the last one (Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence) is available at the SCOTUSBlog Kolbe page:
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/kolbe-v-hogan/

Aug 21 2017 Brief amici curiae of Cato Institute, et al. filed.
Aug 23 2017 Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Edwin Vieira, Jr., et al.
Aug 23 2017 Brief amici curiae of Pink Pistols, et al. filed.
Aug 25 2017 Brief amici curiae of Law Enforcement Groups, et al. filed.
Aug 25 2017 Brief amicus curiae of The National Rifle Association of America, Inc. filed.
Aug 29 2017 Amicus brief of Gun Owners of America, Inc., et al. submitted.
Aug 29 2017 Amicus brief of State of West Virginia and 20 Other States submitted.
Aug 29 2017 Amicus brief of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence submitted.

The GOA brief is a delight to read....

 

[Not_an_outlaw]

Are there Amicus briefs for the other side? I need a good laugh for the day.

 

[esqappellate]

Are there Amicus briefs for the other side? I need a good laugh for the day.

Those amici briefs in support of respondent are due by the date set for the brief in opp filed by the respondent. See Rule 37 SCT Rules. Here that is Oct. 10. Amici briefs in support of petitioner are due within 30 days of the date the petition is "placed on the docket." Id.

 

[rockstarr]

what point do these briefs even have? (sounds bad I know lol)

 

[esqappellate]

what point do these briefs even have? (sounds bad I know lol)

IT gives interest groups whose ox is being gored a chance to opine. On occasion, they will make important points, particularly amicus briefs filed by gov. entities and the United States.

 

[Jim12]

As GOA correctly pointed out, the pen is mightier than the sword.

The Respondents' briefs should be limited in number to ten, with each brief a maximum of ten pages.

And, none of their briefs should be allowed to be produced or duplicated on a modern computer or equipment not in common use at the time the First Amendment was adopted.

For consistency's sake.

 

[Bob A]

The GOA brief is a delight to read....

Agreed.

 

[CrueChief]

As GOA correctly pointed out, the pen is mightier than the sword.

The Respondents' briefs should be limited in number to ten, with each brief a maximum of ten pages.

And, none of their briefs should be allowed to be produced or duplicated on a modern computer or equipment not in common use at the time the First Amendment was adopted.

For consistency's sake.

This drips with so much irony it is most likely lost on them.

 

[danb]

The GOA brief is excellent.

Trouble is, a lot of politicians these days don't like the First Amendment doctrine either and would ban "hate" speech and climate change research... for the children of course.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

Hogan can in theory, but I am not entirely sure its a good idea. Any dispute over who was authorized to seek review, file briefs, or intervene in the case could make it less likely Supreme Court would take it. See here:



https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/051517zor_986b.pdf Its pretty clear that SCT wanted to take this case but the blizzard of filings and dispute made them shy.

If they think that they cannot get to the meat of the case without getting distracted by other procedural issues, they will pass.

Good context. Thanks.

 

[Jim12]

Hogan can in theory, but I am not entirely sure its a good idea. Any dispute over who was authorized to seek review, file briefs, or intervene in the case could make it less likely Supreme Court would take it. See here:



https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/051517zor_986b.pdf Its pretty clear that SCT wanted to take this case but the blizzard of filings and dispute made them shy.

If they think that they cannot get to the meat of the case without getting distracted by other procedural issues, they will pass.

The day that the Supreme Court "shies away" from an important legal issue because lawyers disagree over issues of facts or points of law is the day the Supreme Court should close its doors.

 

[danb]

The day that the Supreme Court "shies away" from an important legal issue because lawyers disagree over issues of facts or points of law is the day the Supreme Court should close its doors.

The Roberts court takes procedure very seriously.

Generally this is a good thing. bad process makes bad law. US v Miller (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller) is a prime example. This is a terrible precedent and the case never should have been taken or argued.

Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the Supreme Court. A lack of financial support and procedural irregularities prevented counsel from traveling.

Under the Roberts court, the case never would have been taken. The risk of the Robert court taking too many cases we like, its that they will take too many we don't like as well. Better that they wait for the right pitch.

 

[Jim12]

The Roberts court takes procedure very seriously.

Generally this is a good thing. bad process makes bad law. US v Miller (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller) is a prime example. This is a terrible precedent and the case never should have been taken or argued.



Under the Roberts court, the case never would have been taken. The risk of the Robert court taking too many cases we like, its that they will take too many we don't like as well. Better that they wait for the right pitch.

Not sure I'd attribute it to "shyness." Not worth debating, though.

 

[danb]

Its not "shyness." They want to spend time looking at the central issue, not spend time sorting out bickering politicians. They do not want to waste time on parties that might not show up, or might not argue the case well.They do not want to get distracted by procedural issues. They take 70 of several thousand cases submitted. They can afford to be picky.

 

[esqappellate]

Its not "shyness." They want to spend time looking at the central issue, not spend time sorting out bickering politicians. They do not want to waste time on parties that might not show up, or might not argue the case well.They do not want to get distracted by procedural issues. They take 70 of several thousand cases submitted. They can afford to be picky.

Agreed. If the case is not in a proper procedural posture for any reason, or if the merits argument is not focused on the issue on which cert was granted, the case is not a proper vehicle in which to reach the merits. In those cases, the right thing to do is Dismiss the Writ as Improvidently Granted. Counsel before the SCT waste everyone's time in failing to understand this or in playing games. The Court is not a legislative body. It sits to resolve disputes in real cases that are otherwise properly before it.

 

[JosERW]

This will make it by the cert pool. Easily.

What does this mean? It is my understanding either Roberts or Kennedy no longer want to defend the Constitution.

 

[JosERW]

IT gives interest groups whose ox is being gored a chance to opine. On occasion, they will make important points, particularly amicus briefs filed by gov. entities and the United States.

Why hasn't Trump's DoJ or any other Trump agency filed a brief defending the Second Amendment. Didn't the ATF just say that modern sporting rifles are useful in self defense?

 

[Schipperke]

(emphasis is mine)

On the afternoon of August 12, 2017, in Charlottesville, Virginia, a woman was killed and five people were critically injured by a vehicle driven by an Ohio man who was attending a rally made possible by using the Internet and social media to draw in thousands of people from surrounding areas and even out of state.4 Notably, even though countless firearms were present,5 not a single shot was fired and, in fact, the First Amendment (yelling and screaming) was far more to blame for the violence than was the Second Amendment.

Better amend ASAP..

 

[esqappellate]

What does this mean? It is my understanding either Roberts or Kennedy no longer want to defend the Constitution.

All it takes to get by the pool is one justice.

 

[esqappellate]

Why hasn't Trump's DoJ or any other Trump agency filed a brief defending the Second Amendment. Didn't the ATF just say that modern sporting rifles are useful in self defense?

The SG seldom files at this stage. An amicus brief chews up resources. It still might if cert is granted.