jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
Yep!
Bianchi is progressing precisely according to plan. The fact that Kolbe is controlling law in the 4th Circuit (where it is extremely unlikely to be reversed) is, for now, a positive factor in that it expedites the Bianchi appeal process. The simple objective is to get Bianchi out of the District Court and before the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, then to the SC where (and while) five conservative Justices can (and maybe will) control the result.
For those here who apparently think Moss (and her co-counsel) are clueless . . . if you wish to be helpful, her email address is included in post #10. Conceding that the future is never completely certain, 2A litigation outcomes in courts controlled by Democrats are almost always adverse. Grounded in basic arithmetic; 2A ligation strategy in this case is not complicated. It is clear (at least to me) that Moss understands the math supporting “common use” and that five is more than four.
“[O]verturned by a court competent to do so,” under these circumstances, is a politic reference to the SC.*
Regards
Jack
*https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18705819/27/bianchi-v-frosh/ PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Page 1.
“Plaintiffs acknowledge that the result they seek is contrary to Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017) (en banc), and therefore that this Court “has ‘no discretion’ but to dismiss” Plaintiffs’ complaint. Eriline Co. S.A. v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 648, 655 n.10 (4th Cir. 2006). Nevertheless, Plaintiffs believe that precedent should be overturned by a court competent to do so.”
If progressing precisely according to plan is to lose at all levels then they are progressing precisely according to plan.
They do not appear to have even rebutted the court's issue. Eriline certain does not say that this Court has no discretion but to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint. All it does is allow the Court to raise the issue sua sponte. Relitigating the same issue is certainly something that the Court has some discretion to prevent. How is this case different from the previous case? Does the Court really have "no discretion"? The lawyers don't seem like they really addressed those issues. They have made it really easy for the court to dismiss the case.