Supreme Court Takes Major NRA Second Amendment Case from New York

[jcutonilli]

100% Spot on!

Heller was as notable for what it didn't say as for what it did say, and that was deliberate. There's something in that decision that a judge can use to go anyway they want.* The federal judiciary was far from on board with the idea that the Second Amendment protects and individual right. As SCOTUS denied more and more 2A petition, judges and politicians have become ever more bold in trying to limit 2A rights. The high court's 2A disengagement has only encouraged actions like the SJC's Caetano decision and NYC's decision to oppose NYSRPA through the Second Circuit. They're playing the odds that SCOTUS will not grant review. Given the high court's record, it's a good bet.

With Caetano and the NYSRPA grant, I think the court is trying to send little hints to see if the lower courts are paying attention - they're not. NYSRPA gave the court the opportunity to issue a very limited decision, but New York blew it. If the petition is ruled moot, it just leaves the door open for a more expansive decision in a broader case.

*The SJC's opinion in Caetano was the big outlier here. It didn't just twist the majority opinion to suit a pre-determined outcome, it basically used the dissent as the basis for their decision. One can see just how torqued the SJC was when they were forced to issue a different ruling in Ramirez. They went out of their way to illustrate just how dangerous and vile stun guns are.

He is not 100% spot on. He completely misses the point. Heller certainly is vague enough for someone to read it any way they want. The real question is how to change it. Simply arguing that the lower courts are not following Heller is not going to change anything because it can be interpreted to support the lower courts decision. There is no need for SCOTUS to step in if the lower courts are mostly following Heller.

What is needed is to be able to explain why the lower courts are getting it wrong. I see very little if any argument devoted to why the lower courts are getting it wrong, they simply argue their particular interpretation of Heller.

I think one of the things that separated this case from the others was that there was no data supporting NYC's conclusions. I suspect there are five votes to at least require that some kind of supporting data is required. This case does not present a compelling argument to move much beyond that however.

I don't think they are looking for more expansive cases. One of the areas of similarity with all the cases they have taken are the they are very narrow in scope/applicability.

When I look at the reasons why SCOTUS is not taking cases, I attribute it to the arguments and the lack of explanation as to why the other side is not interpreting things correctly. How can SCOTUS really change things if you cannot articulate the reasoning?

 

[Atlasarmory]

Yea how are we supposed to be able to do our militiaing if we cant transport or have our arms outside. Duh

 

[danb]

So, 5 grants today (no 2A cases). Supposedly these were from the Dec 13th conference. Very curious.

 

[Some Guy]

So, 5 grants today (no 2A cases). Supposedly these were from the Dec 13th conference. Very curious.

Now I'm curious. Why's this curious? I'm not familiar with how the court issues its decisions and communications, etc. Just curious!

 

[danb]

Now I'm curious. Why's this curious? I'm not familiar with how the court issues its decisions and communications, etc. Just curious!

Grants usually come out Friday of the conference, or Monday. Never the following Wednesday. It suggests they are still going through cases from dec 13th conference.

 

[Some Guy]

Grants usually come out Friday of the conference, or Monday. Never the following Wednesday. It suggests they are still going through cases from dec 13th conference.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Kharn]

They probably didn't want the cases to linger a month for late January grants, SCOTUSblog says now there are enough cases to fill the March argument calendar.

 

[PowPow]

Grants usually come out Friday of the conference, or Monday. Never the following Wednesday. It suggests they are still going through cases from dec 13th conference.

Maybe sickness or holiday stress?

 

[LeadSled1]

Yea how are we supposed to be able to do our militiaing if we cant transport or have our arms outside. Duh

Militias gotta militia.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Now I'm curious. Why's this curious? I'm not familiar with how the court issues its decisions and communications, etc. Just curious!

The Order List is updated after every conference and on an ad hoc basis when necessary. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt/19

Court watchers scour this list regularly to see which petitions get granted or denied. GVRs and other orders are also listed. Sometime they're amusing.

 

[Blacksmith101]

From Amy Howe's post on SCOTUSblog:

With the justices not scheduled to consider new petitions for review again until January 10, 2020, today’s new grants give the Supreme Court enough cases to comfortably fill its March argument session, which begins on March 23. Orders from the January 10 conference could come as early as that afternoon.

Since none of the held 2A cases have moved forward. Does this increase the likelihood the New York case is not moot and will be heard on merits?

 

[daNattyFatty]

From Amy Howe's post on SCOTUSblog:


Since none of the held 2A cases have moved forward. Does this increase the likelihood the New York case is not moot and will be heard on merits?

That seems to be the prevailing speculation at this point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[BeoBill]

Has anyone heard how RBG is doing with her three broken ribs? She has to be high af from those pain meds...

ETA:

This is what prompted the question:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Suggests Senators Can be Disqualified from Upcoming Impeachment Trial if they are Not Impartial
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...-impeachment-trial-if-they-are-not-impartial/

 

[esqappellate]

From Amy Howe's post on SCOTUSblog:


Since none of the held 2A cases have moved forward. Does this increase the likelihood the New York case is not moot and will be heard on merits?

Maybe. There are 3 conferences in January. If no action after the Jan. 10 conference, then perhaps

 

[ironpony]

Has anyone heard how RBG is doing with her three broken ribs? She has to be high af from those pain meds...

ETA:

This is what prompted the question:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Suggests Senators Can be Disqualified from Upcoming Impeachment Trial if they are Not Impartial
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...-impeachment-trial-if-they-are-not-impartial/

I did hear her cryosleep chamber is under repair ....

 

[rockstarr]

Has anyone heard how RBG is doing with her three broken ribs? She has to be high af from those pain meds...

ETA:

This is what prompted the question:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Suggests Senators Can be Disqualified from Upcoming Impeachment Trial if they are Not Impartial
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...-impeachment-trial-if-they-are-not-impartial/

I didn't see shit about her feeling that way when the house conducted its partisan process.

 

[Bob A]

I didn't see shit about her feeling that way when the house conducted its partisan process.

Noo one ever suggested that prosecutors are impartial. Their job is to win cases, and thus win re-election.

To be fair, some of them may be ethical. Then there are the ones who withhold exculpatory evidence. . .

I trust Madame G will soon suggest that senators who would benefit politically from Trump's downfall will recuse themselves. . . .

 

[DanGuy48]

So with this noise about Roberts possibly having to recuse himself from impeachment proceedings over possible conflict of interest because of his involvement with the FISA court, are democrats hoping to get RGB to oversee the impeachment and disqualify “biased” senators? Who would replace Roberts if he recuses himself?

 

[danb]

So with this noise about Roberts possibly having to recuse himself from impeachment proceedings over possible conflict of interest because of his involvement with the FISA court, are democrats hoping to get RGB to oversee the impeachment and disqualify “biased” senators? Who would replace Roberts if he refuses himself?

It would be Thomas, not RBG, who would be next:


https://reason.com/2019/11/17/could-justice-thomas-preside-over-president-trumps-impeachment-trial/

Also, her direct comments about Trump and the impeachment would almost certainly disqualify her even if Robert's and Thomas could not do it.

 

[DanGuy48]

It would be Thomas, not RBG, who would be next:


https://reason.com/2019/11/17/could-justice-thomas-preside-over-president-trumps-impeachment-trial/

Also, her direct comments about Trump and the impeachment would almost certainly disqualify her even if Robert's and Thomas could not do it.

Thanks, and sorry for the typo.