Supreme Court rules against NYC gun lawsuit

[B Strong]

NYC suit against gun manufacturers shot down in flames.

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200903091032DOWJONESDJONLINE000306_FORTUNE5.htm

[Dr Rockso]

Today's a good day

[hoffmang]

Oh yes. This is a nice "no cert granted" case.

-Gene

[VW*Mike]

I like how the libs bring up that it supposedly violated the 10th amendment, well what about the 2nd?

[KWA-S]

Hey, I saw this on Lou Dobbs tonight!

Pretty cool how CGN is ahead of the telly.:thumbsup:

[Kid Stanislaus]

My question is whether or not the strategy is to induce "death by a thousand cuts" by filing multiple lawsuits to jack up the legal expenses of the gun manufacturers.

[outersquare]

there is some irony in a northern state crying about states rights

[Librarian]

The result is good news, but the thread title - Supreme Court rules against NYC gun lawsuit - is a little off.

It's certainly true that denial of cert leaves the circuit court decisions in place.

But SCOTUS has long said that denial of cert is not a 'decision'; they ruled against taking the case and offering a decision. They get hundreds of cases requesting cert, and take just a few every year."The denial of a writ of certiorari imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case, as the bar has been told many times." United States v. Carver, 260 U.S. 482, 490.All we can conclude is that there were not four justices who thought the decisions were so wrong they needed to be fixed, or so important they needed emphasizing. Good discussion here (http://stuartbuck.blogspot.com/2004/10/denial-of-cert.html).

It's a technical point, but if you had been in the swamps of court cases with antis, you would be aware that it has long been a tactic of theirs to portray denial of cert as support for whatever silly decision (e.g. Cases (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/cases_v_us.txt)) was under discussion.