PDA

View Full Version : Nordyke: en banc panel announced


hoffmang
03-11-2012, 9:55 AM
The calendaring announcement (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/calendaring/2012/03/09/sfEB03_12.pdf) for the next couple of weeks just came out and in it, it reveals our panel for Nordyke on the 19th.

KOZINSKI, PREGERSON, REINHARDT, O'SCANNLAIN, HAWKINS, GRABER, GOULD, TALLMAN, CALLAHAN, M SMITH, IKUTA

Note that this is slightly different than the previous panel which was:

Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Harry Pregerson, Stephen Reinhardt, Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, Pamela Ann Rymer, Michael Daly Hawkins, Susan P. Graber, Ronald M. Gould, Richard C. Tallman, Milan D. Smith, Jr. and Sandra S. Ikuta

-Gene

E Pluribus Unum
03-11-2012, 9:57 AM
The calendaring announcement (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/calendaring/2012/03/09/sfEB03_12.pdf) for the next couple of weeks just came out and in it, it reveals our panel for Nordyke on the 19th.

KOZINSKI, PREGERSON, REINHARDT, O'SCANNLAIN, HAWKINS, GRABER, GOULD, TALLMAN, CALLAHAN, M SMITH, IKUTA

Note that this is slightly different than the previous panel which was:

Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Harry Pregerson, Stephen Reinhardt, Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, Pamela Ann Rymer, Michael Daly Hawkins, Susan P. Graber, Ronald M. Gould, Richard C. Tallman, Milan D. Smith, Jr. and Sandra S. Ikuta

-Gene

What does it mean?

Better or worse? :)

BusBoy
03-11-2012, 10:00 AM
:lurk5:

Tarn_Helm
03-11-2012, 10:02 AM
The calendaring announcement (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/calendaring/2012/03/09/sfEB03_12.pdf) for the next couple of weeks just came out and in it, it reveals our panel for Nordyke on the 19th.

KOZINSKI, PREGERSON, REINHARDT, O'SCANNLAIN, HAWKINS, GRABER, GOULD, TALLMAN, CALLAHAN, M SMITH, IKUTA

Note that this is slightly different than the previous panel which was:

Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Harry Pregerson, Stephen Reinhardt, Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, Pamela Ann Rymer, Michael Daly Hawkins, Susan P. Graber, Ronald M. Gould, Richard C. Tallman, Milan D. Smith, Jr. and Sandra S. Ikuta

-Gene

What does it mean?

Better or worse? :)

Yes, as EPU said, does this new information have any value for informed speculation on your part?

Just curious.

HowardW56
03-11-2012, 10:26 AM
:popcorn:

dvcrsn
03-11-2012, 10:28 AM
is this new panel going to help us or hurt us

HowardW56
03-11-2012, 10:41 AM
is this new panel going to help us or hurt us

We'll know in a few months....

CycloSteve
03-11-2012, 10:42 AM
New panelist = Consuelo Maria Callahan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consuelo_Mar%C3%ADa_Callahan

Previous panelist = Pamela Ann Rymer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Ann_Rymer

Hard to tell based on the wiki.

Decoligny
03-11-2012, 11:42 AM
From one of her previous cases:

In Ileto v. Glock, 370 F.3d 860 (9th Cir. 2004), a mentally disturbed man, prohibited by law from owning a gun, opened fire on a Los Angeles-area Jewish Community Center wounding several children and killing postal worker Joseph Ileto. Callahan penned a dissent sharply criticizing the majority decision that allowed a suit filed by victims against the gun manufacturer to go forward. She wrote, "(t)he potential impact of the panel's decision is staggering ... the practical costs of forcing manufacturers to defend to juries all non-meritorious claims, as well as arguably meritorious claims, for all injuries that occurred in California cannot help but have a substantial impact on California's economy."

Librarian
03-11-2012, 12:29 PM
Rymer wrote the opinion for Fresno Rifle (http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/fresno_club_v_vandecamp.txt) ...

ETA and she is, indeed, deceased as of Dec 21, 2011 http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/september/pamela-rymer-obit-092911.html.

Sobriquet
03-11-2012, 12:50 PM
Seems like an advantageous swap to me...

Ubermcoupe
03-11-2012, 12:54 PM
I’m with Sobriquet. She seems like she knows the impact of her decision is bigger than “guns are bad because they are bad.” I hope she can convince the others to see the light. :)

I’m cautiously optimistic.

Icypu
03-11-2012, 1:03 PM
It looks like a great news. Looking forward to more!

:lurk5:

wildhawker
03-11-2012, 1:29 PM
New panelist = Consuelo Maria Callahan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consuelo_Mar%C3%ADa_Callahan

Previous panelist = Pamela Ann Rymer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Ann_Rymer

Hard to tell based on the wiki.

Judge Callahan is an improvement for us.

-Brandon

vantec08
03-11-2012, 1:35 PM
Judge Callahan is an improvement for us.

-Brandon


Thank God. I'm one of those that put way to much importance on the original Nordyke and felt like we lost - - until it was pointed out that it really incorporated the Second Amendment to the states, thereby setting the stage for further ligitation.

Decoligny
03-11-2012, 2:16 PM
Rymer got the short end of the deal. She died on Sep 21, 2011

brassburnz
03-11-2012, 2:24 PM
Not that it matters much, but one of my friends is on that list.

A Bush appointee, naturally.

HumGuns
03-11-2012, 2:55 PM
Hawkins at least was born, grew up, and lives in a solid RKBA state, AZ!

Librarian
03-11-2012, 3:01 PM
9th Circuit mini-bios here: http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/ninthcircuit/circuit_judges.html

gunsmith
03-11-2012, 8:23 PM
Didn't
KOZINSKI write the dissent years ago when we lost the Silvera V Lockyer case ... like ... ten yrs ago or something?

Even though we lost
KOZINSKI wrote a great dissent, very well written argument pro RKBA, iirc Mike Savage doesn't like him because of some porn issue -
KOZINSKI decided for free speech too, seems like a well informed Judge to me.

wash
03-11-2012, 8:37 PM
While the new panel seems like an improvement, the last en banc panel basically punted back to the original three judge panel after the McDonald vs. Chicago decision came down.

I don't know if this is good or bad because the last panel really didn't do anything.

I hope it's good but it is quite possible that good or bad Nordyke winds up at SCOTUS and this panel is just the last step before we get there.

VegasND
03-11-2012, 9:33 PM
I'm looking forward to seeing an actual decision in this case.

krucam
03-12-2012, 12:46 PM
Imagine, Norkyke getting a little bit of Deja Vu (aka Ground Hog Day)....

;-)

kcbrown
03-12-2012, 3:25 PM
The calendaring announcement (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/calendaring/2012/03/09/sfEB03_12.pdf) for the next couple of weeks just came out and in it, it reveals our panel for Nordyke on the 19th.

KOZINSKI, PREGERSON, REINHARDT, O'SCANNLAIN, HAWKINS, GRABER, GOULD, TALLMAN, CALLAHAN, M SMITH, IKUTA


Here are the judges and their appointees:

Kozinski: Reagan
Pregerson: Carter
Reinhardt: Carter
O'Scannlain: Reagan
Hawkins: Clinton
Graber: Clinton
Gould: Clinton
Tallman: Clinton
Callahan: G.W. Bush
M. Smith: G.W. Bush
Ikuta: G.W. Bush


5 conservatives, 6 liberals (if one goes by their appointees). Kozinski is the chief justice.

Swing at least one of the liberals our way and we win. Otherwise we "lose" (in quotes because it means we appeal to SCOTUS. No idea how to determine the probability that they'll grant cert, but if they do grant cert then I think there's a very good chance we'll win).

A bonus for us is that the chief justice is almost certainly on our side (see his dissent in Silveira). Maybe he'll be able to sway some of the liberal judges to our side.

Blackhawk556
03-12-2012, 4:05 PM
Well tell your friend to do the right thing.:chris:;)

Not that it matters much, but one of my friends is on that list.

A Bush appointee, naturally.

Here are the judges and their appointees:

Kozinski: Reagan
Pregerson: Carter
Reinhardt: Carter
O'Scannlain: Reagan
Hawkins: Clinton
Graber: Clinton
Gould: Clinton
Tallman: Clinton
Callahan: G.W. Bush
M. Smith: G.W. Bush
Ikuta: G.W. Bush


5 conservatives, 6 liberals (if one goes by their appointees). Kozinski is the chief justice.

Swing at least one of the liberals our way and we win. Otherwise we "lose" (in quotes because it means we appeal to SCOTUS. No idea how to determine the probability that they'll grant cert, but if they do grant cert then I think there's a very good chance we'll win).

A bonus for us is that the chief justice is almost certainly on our side (see his dissent in Silveira). Maybe he'll be able to sway some of the liberal judges to our side.

I hope this turns out good for us.

CCWFacts
03-12-2012, 4:20 PM
A bonus for us is that the chief justice is almost certainly on our side (see his dissent in Silveira). Maybe he'll be able to sway some of the liberal judges to our side.

Yeah, he's great. I'm hoping we'll win this because that will let a bunch of other important cases lurch forward, or would those be stayed pending Nordyke's inevitable appeal, en banc rehearing, or whatever other delay mechanism they come up with?

bulgron
03-12-2012, 5:04 PM
A bonus for us is that the chief justice is almost certainly on our side (see his dissent in Silveira). Maybe he'll be able to sway some of the liberal judges to our side.

I wonder if Kozinski can at least keep them from sitting on the decision for the next decade.

brassburnz
03-12-2012, 6:08 PM
Well tell your friend to do the right thing.:chris:;)

I hope this turns out good for us.

I wish I could, but my friend knows where I stand and knew that before getting appointed to the bench by Bush and approved by the Senate. Needless to say, two of my friend's biggest critics during the confirmation hearings were Boxer and Feinstein.

stag1500
03-12-2012, 6:31 PM
Swing at least one of the liberals our way and we win. Otherwise we "lose"...

That might just be the best thing that could happen for the Nordyke case so it can finally get out of the 9th Circuit.

jdberger
03-12-2012, 6:34 PM
Just a reminder, there's a dinner following the Oral Arguments for Nordyke. You all are invited. Details are here.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=533272

Stonewalker
03-13-2012, 1:34 AM
Alas, I've got work that day and class that night. Sacramento is just too far from SF under such circumstances. I'm sure it will be a good time for all.

press1280
03-13-2012, 1:52 AM
Someone refresh my memory-

All issues from the original panel are in play here, including the 2A issue? So a "loss" means it'll be appeallable to SCOTUS? Or, is it only the 1A/EP issue that's in play?

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
03-13-2012, 5:44 AM
Swing at least one of the liberals our way and we win.

Do you see Reagan appointee O'Scannlain (who authored the last two opinions) changing his tune this time around? If so, why?

Crom
03-13-2012, 8:15 AM
A bonus for us is that the chief justice is almost certainly on our side (see his dissent in Silveira). Maybe he'll be able to sway some of the liberal judges to our side.

Silveria v. Lockyer (2002) (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13948185712203065755) had no such dissent, in fact Kozinski did not even sit on the 3-judge panel who heard it. Kozinski did however write a dissent in the ORDER denying the petition for a rehearing en banc (2003) (http://notabug.com/kozinski/silveira_v_lockyer). For those who have not read it, Kozinski has a very witty writing style and contains some very quotable compelling arguments.

Even so, it's my understanding that he was in favor of the individual right view and opposed to the collective right view for the 2A. Because the merits were never reached in the case it's impossible to know which way he would have went on the AWCA had it been heard en banc.

wash
03-13-2012, 9:50 AM
Do you see Reagan appointee O'Scannlain (who authored the last two opinions) changing his tune this time around? If so, why?
It's my belief that the last two decisions were "judicial theater", the three judge panel always knew that the antis would call for en banc if their decision was good for RKBA, so they made the last one bad enough that our side would call for en banc. That's one of the few benefits of being in the reversible ninth, they can get away with things like that if the final outcome is correct.

I still think that the result of this en banc is meaningless because either way will be appealed to SCOTUS and the first and second amendment mix (with the lack of "color") will make this an appealing case for them to hear.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
03-13-2012, 10:51 AM
It's my belief that the last two decisions were "judicial theater", the three judge panel always knew that the antis would call for en banc if their decision was good for RKBA, so they made the last one bad enough that our side would call for en banc. That's one of the few benefits of being in the reversible ninth, they can get away with things like that if the final outcome is correct.


Not sure if I'm following this, you're saying the 3-judge panel is doing some kind of reverse psychology thing where they are incorrectly deciding the case expecting it will get reversed and then the final outcome will be correct? That they're helping RKBA by not correctly deciding the case themselves, because if they did, that would get reversed when the antis sought en banc review? Personally I think the latest Nordyke opinion was helpful for 2A self-defense carry outside the home, and I'll be interested in how the "leave to amend" aspect of the latest opinion is handled during the en banc arguments.

E Pluribus Unum
03-13-2012, 11:06 AM
Not sure if I'm following this, you're saying the 3-judge panel is doing some kind of reverse psychology thing where they are incorrectly deciding the case expecting it will get reversed and then the final outcome will be correct? That they're helping RKBA by not correctly deciding the case themselves, because if they did, that would get reversed when the antis sought en banc review? Personally I think the latest Nordyke opinion was helpful for 2A self-defense carry outside the home, and I'll be interested in how the "leave to amend" aspect of the latest opinion is handled during the en banc arguments.

I would be very pleased if the whole "Automatic Weapons" concession is left out this time.... I'm sure Don has a new... more thought-out answer for that question.... :)