PDA

View Full Version : Maloney first in line?


Maestro Pistolero
07-20-2009, 12:20 PM
Assuming Sotomayor is confirmed, couldn't Roberts simply schedule Maloney to be the first incorporation case, since Sotomayor has pledged to recuse herself? Once Maloney brings incorporation, Sotomayor would have less flexibility in future 2A decisions, that is, if she will indeed follow precedent as she has said.

Tallship
07-20-2009, 12:55 PM
Assuming Sotomayor is confirmed, couldn't Roberts simply schedule Maloney to be the first incorporation case, since Sotomayor has pledged to recuse herself? Once Maloney brings incorporation, Sotomayor would have less flexibility in future 2A decisions, that is, if she will indeed follow precedent as she has said.


Are you kidding? Once she's confirmed, every lie she told the Senate goes out the window.

tiki
07-20-2009, 12:58 PM
Are you kidding? Once she's confirmed, every lie she told the Senate goes out the window.


Ding!!

press1280
07-20-2009, 2:03 PM
Assuming Sotomayor is confirmed, couldn't Roberts simply schedule Maloney to be the first incorporation case, since Sotomayor has pledged to recuse herself? Once Maloney brings incorporation, Sotomayor would have less flexibility in future 2A decisions, that is, if she will indeed follow precedent as she has said.

I don't think it matters as long as the Heller 5 stand firm. If she recuses herself, and one of the 5 flips, then its 4-4, which means the appeals court decision stands(meaning we lose). I may be wrong, but I think thats how it goes. But, the Chicago case is in my mind the one that'll get there, not Maloney.

N6ATF
07-20-2009, 2:13 PM
Are you kidding? Once she's confirmed, every lie she told the Senate goes out the window.

http://thejazzsession.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/winner.jpg

ke6guj
07-20-2009, 2:15 PM
AFAIK, the justices can decide to take any/all of the cases in any order they wish. And can even combine the cases into one if they want to.

Aegis
07-20-2009, 2:30 PM
Any SCOTUS justice that votes against incorporation is morally and ethically bankrupt. McDonald seems like a better case for SCOTUS.

Maestro Pistolero
07-20-2009, 9:54 PM
The point is, if Maloney is first, she doesn't vote on the first incorporation case. That precedent gets decided without her.

N6ATF
07-20-2009, 10:17 PM
The point is, if Maloney is first, she doesn't vote on the first incorporation case. That precedent gets decided without her.

Unless she's not appointed yet, I expect her to go back on her word and not recuse herself, fulfilling her purpose in life of screwing law-abiding citizens in favor of criminals. With ultimate power comes ultimate arrogance.

dwa
07-20-2009, 10:28 PM
after one is proclaimed caesar they typically grow bolder.

Irrational Voice
07-20-2009, 10:29 PM
Any SCOTUS justice that votes against incorporation is morally and ethically bankrupt.

So you're predicting 6-3?

Maestro Pistolero
07-20-2009, 10:54 PM
It is entirely possible that the vote on incorporation won't be as close as the vote on the DC gun ban. IIRC, all the justices thought it was an individual right, it's just that four of them, incredibly and inexplicably, thought that the DC ban didn't violate it.

Mulay El Raisuli
07-21-2009, 5:32 AM
It is entirely possible that the vote on incorporation won't be as close as the vote on the DC gun ban. IIRC, all the justices thought it was an individual right, it's just that four of them, incredibly and inexplicably, thought that the DC ban didn't violate it.



Quite so. Something to consider is that the Left isn't happy with her answers either. According to what I recently read in the Wash. Post, they're not sure she was the best choice to 'push the Court away from the right.' She might be a slave to precedent. That would explain her ruling in Maloney. Now that Heller is the precedent, she might very well follow the legal logic that since 'keep' is a Right, 'bear' MUST also be one. Remember that Souter was supposed to the Great Right Hope when he was appointed. Look what a surprise he turned out to be.

Finally, keep in mind that EVERYBODY hates the Slaughterhouse Cases & Cruikshank. BOTH Left & Right want P&I Incorporation. Even the ACLU is pushing for it. They push for VERY different reasons, but that doesn't matter. Regardless of how P&I gets in, we win when it does.

The Raisuli

Maestro Pistolero
07-21-2009, 10:14 AM
BOR Incorporation en mass via the 14th would make our cause the catalyst for the broadest expansion of civil rights perhaps since the civil war.

Aren't there still some states where there is no right to a grand jury trial? This would be huge, and messy to sort through all of the precedent that descended from the selective incorporation doctrine. The SCOTUS must be thinking about ways to minimize the fallout.

yellowfin
07-21-2009, 10:47 AM
Finally, keep in mind that EVERYBODY hates the Slaughterhouse Cases & Cruikshank. BOTH Left & Right want P&I Incorporation. Even the ACLU is pushing for it. They push for VERY different reasons, but that doesn't matter. Regardless of how P&I gets in, we win when it does.

The Raisuli Sotomayor is perfectly comfortable with Cruikshank and Slaughterhouse as are the rest of the anti gun political complex and in fact she likes them. They wouldn't dare lift a finger against them on their own; it hasn't been challenged in 134 years and that's not an accident. They can't win with those gone, in fact, they can't do a lot of the stuff they love doing without them. They may see some stuff like maybe gay marriage but on firearms and tax laws they're hosed if we win. Some have pointed out here that the majority of folks are completely and totally unaware of those two decisions and don't have the legal background to see that CA, NY, NJ, HI, IL, and MA's laws, and not just the firearms ones, completely fly in the face of the Constitution in total YET are legally upheld. Even a 2nd grader could tell that something's wrong if you explained it to them slow enough.

Mulay El Raisuli
07-22-2009, 6:08 AM
Sotomayor is perfectly comfortable with Cruikshank and Slaughterhouse as are the rest of the anti gun political complex and in fact she likes them. They wouldn't dare lift a finger against them on their own; it hasn't been challenged in 134 years and that's not an accident. They can't win with those gone, in fact, they can't do a lot of the stuff they love doing without them. They may see some stuff like maybe gay marriage but on firearms and tax laws they're hosed if we win. Some have pointed out here that the majority of folks are completely and totally unaware of those two decisions and don't have the legal background to see that CA, NY, NJ, HI, IL, and MA's laws, and not just the firearms ones, completely fly in the face of the Constitution in total YET are legally upheld. Even a 2nd grader could tell that something's wrong if you explained it to them slow enough.



I haven't seen anything that shows Sotomayor likes Cruikshank & the Slaughterhouses. From what I can see, she followed them because as a judge on an inferior court, she's bound to. In any event, even if you're correct, it isn't just her. There are far too many out there, on both sides, who do hate those cases.

The Raisuli

forgiven
07-22-2009, 7:47 AM
We need Obama out of here before Ruthy drops. I hope for our sake she isn't ASKED to retire.

Maestro Pistolero
07-22-2009, 8:47 AM
We need Obama out of here before Ruthy drops. I hope for our sake she isn't ASKED to retire.

Ginsburg's health is not good. I can't help but think these justices consider who may be appointed to replace them, when timing their departure.

berto
07-22-2009, 8:51 AM
Ginsburg's health is not good. I can't help but think these justices consider who may be appointed to replace them, when timing their departure.

Of course they do. Souter could have retired a year earlier but that would have given Bush the chance to pick another justice.

yellowfin
07-22-2009, 9:13 AM
I haven't seen anything that shows Sotomayor likes Cruikshank & the Slaughterhouses. From what I can see, she followed them because as a judge on an inferior court, she's bound to. In any event, even if you're correct, it isn't just her. There are far too many out there, on both sides, who do hate those cases. She wasn't bound to them at all since Heller invalidated Cruikshank and even if it didn't the decision is if nothing else totally unconscionable and thereby has no legal force. No judge is bound by it anyway since its basis has been undercut on all counts--ruling against it simply makes sense and it's only a convenient excuse, not binding guidance, to say that SCOTUS hasn't actually spelled it out verbatim that it is void. The bad courts are just delaying as long as possible before SCOTUS grabs them by the arm and drags them kicking and screaming to it--they're completely free to get to it on their own, but they simply don't wanna do it. They'd rather jump off a roof first.

Mulay El Raisuli
07-23-2009, 6:46 AM
She wasn't bound to them at all since Heller invalidated Cruikshank and even if it didn't the decision is if nothing else totally unconscionable and thereby has no legal force. No judge is bound by it anyway since its basis has been undercut on all counts--ruling against it simply makes sense and it's only a convenient excuse, not binding guidance, to say that SCOTUS hasn't actually spelled it out verbatim that it is void. The bad courts are just delaying as long as possible before SCOTUS grabs them by the arm and drags them kicking and screaming to it--they're completely free to get to it on their own, but they simply don't wanna do it. They'd rather jump off a roof first.



The problem with that is Heller didn't invalidate Cruikshank. Its irrelevancy was strongly hinted at, but it isn't dead yet. She might very well be using it as an excuse. Its even likely. But until SCOTUS says definitively that its dead, basing a Ruling on it isn't unjudicial.

The Raisuli