PDA

View Full Version : Today is the Day Will SCOTUS Grant Cert?


glockman19
11-09-2007, 7:43 AM
Today is the Day Will SCOTUS Grant Certification to Heler?

Stanze
11-09-2007, 7:48 AM
You don't need a permit for any other constitutional amendments, why should the 2nd be any different? GO SCOTUS!:)

PanzerAce
11-09-2007, 8:21 AM
here's hoping.....

Its been 68 years you guys, time to actually look at it again ;)

Bizcuits
11-09-2007, 8:31 AM
I don't pray much, but I made time today.

Fjold
11-09-2007, 8:33 AM
I'm confused, the SCOTUS Blog says nothing about it for today:


Today at the Supreme Court | 11.9.07
Friday, November 9th, 2007 12:01 am |

The Justices are scheduled to hold a private conference today, orders from which are expected to be released the following Tuesday. ......list of “petitions to watch,” .


Conference of November 9, 2007

Docket: 06-1717
Name: Richlin Security Service Company v. Chertoff
Issue: Whether prevailing parties under the Equal Access to Justice Act should be compensated for the market rate of paralegal services or only for the cost of such services to the attorney. (Disclosure: Howe & Russell filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioner.)

Opinion below (Federal Circuit)
Petition for certiorari
Brief in opposition
Petitioner’s reply
Amicus brief of the National Association of Legal Assistants (in support of petitioner)
__________________

Docket: 07-12
Name: Tejeda v. United States
Issue: Whether a presumption of prejudice for improper jury contact should apply to a throat-slitting gesture made by the defendant’s grandfather to members of the jury.

Opinion below (First Circuit)
Petition for certiorari
Brief in opposition
__________________

Docket: 07-81
Name: Exxon Mobil v. Doe
Issue: Whether the collateral order doctrine permits an immediate appeal of a denial of a motion to dismiss on political question grounds, where the State Department has expressed concern the litigation could adversely impact U.S. interests abroad.

Opinion below (D.C. Circuit)
Petition for certiorari
Brief in opposition
Petitioner’s reply
__________________

Docket: 07-107
Name: National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Cohane
Issue: Whether a college basketball coach’s allegations were sufficient to potentially hold the NCAA liable under 42 U.S.C. 1983, for conspiring with a public university to deprive him of due process in forcing him to resign over alleged rules violations. (Disclosure: Howe & Russell represents the respondent.)

Opinion below (Second Circuit)
Petition for certiorari
Brief in opposition
Petitioner’s reply
Amicus brief of the American Council on Education (in support of petitioner)
Amicus brief of the National Federation of State High School Associations (in support of petitioner)
__________________

Docket: 07-290
Name: District of Columbia v. Heller
Issue: Whether the District of Columbia’s hand gun law violates the Second Amendment. (Disclosure: Akin Gump represents the petitioner.)

Opinion below (D.C. Circuit)
Petition for certiorari
Brief in response
Petitioner’s reply
Amicus brief of the American Academy of Pediatrics (in support of petitioner)
Amicus brief of New York, Hawaii, Illinois, and Maryland (in support of petitioner)
Amicus brief of the American Civil Rights Union (in support of respondent)
__________________

Docket: 07-331
Name: Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada v. White
Issue: Whether an ERISA plan may contain a “proof of claim accrual” clause, starting the limitations period when the participant’s proof of claim is due, or whether the statute of limitations on an ERISA cause of action cannot begin to run until a benefits claims has been formally denied.

Opinion below (Fourth Circuit)
Petition for certiorari
Brief in opposition
Petitioner’s reply
Amicus brief of the American Council of Life Insurers (in support of petitioner)

glockman19
11-09-2007, 8:35 AM
It's #4
Docket: 07-290
Name: District of Columbia v. Heller
Issue: Whether the District of Columbia’s hand gun law violates the Second Amendment. (Disclosure: Akin Gump represents the petitioner.)

Bizcuits
11-09-2007, 9:02 AM
I'm confused, the SCOTUS Blog says nothing about it for today:


Docket: 07-290
Name: District of Columbia v. Heller
Issue: Whether the District of Columbia’s hand gun law violates the Second Amendment. (Disclosure: Akin Gump represents the petitioner.)

Opinion below (D.C. Circuit)
Petition for certiorari
Brief in response
Petitioner’s reply
Amicus brief of the American Academy of Pediatrics (in support of petitioner)
Amicus brief of New York, Hawaii, Illinois, and Maryland (in support of petitioner)
Amicus brief of the American Civil Rights Union (in support of respondent)

lol dude you just made my day :D

elenius
11-09-2007, 9:03 AM
Amicus brief of the American Academy of Pediatrics (in support of petitioner)
Amicus brief of New York, Hawaii, Illinois, and Maryland (in support of petitioner)
Amicus brief of the American Civil Rights Union (in support of respondent)


I'm still shocked (but glad) that CA hasn't filed an amicus in support of DC.

mblat
11-09-2007, 9:06 AM
Amicus brief of the American Academy of Pediatrics (in support of petitioner)
Amicus brief of New York, Hawaii, Illinois, and Maryland (in support of petitioner)
Amicus brief of the American Civil Rights Union (in support of respondent)

do I read it right? ALCU filed brief in support of Heller?

elenius
11-09-2007, 9:10 AM
do I read it right? ALCU filed brief in support of Heller?

Nope. ACRU. Very different :) That threw me off too.

Liberty1
11-09-2007, 9:13 AM
do I read it right? ALCU filed brief in support of Heller?

Read it again :rolleyes:. And read their filings: http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/acru_petition_amici.pdf

http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/acru_cross_petition_amici.pdf

The Court considers Heller today. We won't know until the 13th, at the latest, what they will decide.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071109/METRO/111090069/1004

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to announce by Tuesday whether it will hear the District"s appeal of a federal court ruling that lifted the city"s ban on handguns. The high court"s decision, which could come as early as today...

mblat
11-09-2007, 9:30 AM
Read it again :rolleyes:. And read their filings: http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/acru_petition_amici.pdf

http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/acru_cross_petition_amici.pdf

The Court considers Heller today. We won't know until the 13th, at the latest, what they will decide.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071109/METRO/111090069/1004

Got it. I actually went and started to read briefs and then DUH! it is ACRU, not ACLU....
Just threw me off for a sec.... :D

Exiledviking
11-09-2007, 10:07 AM
I don't pray much, but I made time today.


I also said a prayer this morning.

Fjold
11-09-2007, 10:21 AM
lol dude you just made my day :D

I can read but I apparently have lost the ability to comprehend what I am reading unless it's pointed out to me using small words.


Never mind!

Bizcuits
11-09-2007, 10:46 AM
I can read but I apparently have lost the ability to comprehend what I am reading unless it's pointed out to me using small words.


Never mind!


ah I'm the same way, don't worry.. although my problem is I don't pay attention, my mind has a way of drifting off lol

Anthonysmanifesto
11-09-2007, 10:55 AM
Sac Bee talks about it here (http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/480227.html)

Liberty1
11-09-2007, 11:05 AM
Got it. I actually went and started to read briefs and then DUH! it is ACRU, not ACLU....
Just threw me off for a sec.... :D

Me too. I did a double take the first time I glossed over ACRU. I'd never heard of them before. I'm glad they're out there!

762cavalier
11-09-2007, 11:10 AM
I see the Bee's reporter once again looked at the Miller decision without actually reading the history behind it:rolleyes:

tgriffin
11-09-2007, 11:57 AM
:lurk5::lurk5::lurk5:

aileron
11-09-2007, 12:09 PM
I dont know, this kind of stresses me out. I think I need more than popcorn, maybe a beer. We don't have a beer icon.


I'll just go with...
:hurray:

tgriffin
11-09-2007, 12:21 PM
I dont know, this kind of stresses me out. I think I need more than popcorn, maybe a beer. We don't have a beer icon.


I'll just go with...
:hurray:

I KNOW! Im checking this thread and the other one every few minutes.....ya know...just in case my email notification is lying to me. Thats reasonable right? *twitch* Gonna go buy a gun today to celebrate.

aileron
11-09-2007, 12:26 PM
Yup watching it too.

JawBone
11-09-2007, 12:40 PM
Arrrrgh!

Looks like we'll have to wait until Tuesday. The suspense is killing me.

www.scotusblog.com


The Supreme Court, in the only orders issued Friday, agreed to allow the U.S. Solicitor General to offer the federal government’s views in oral argument in two cases on federal preemption of state law-based activity — Riegel v. Medtronic (06-179), involving preemption of state court claims against makers of medical devices, set for argument Dec. 4, and Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association (06-457), involving preemption of state regulation of commercial delivery of tobacco, set for argument Nov. 28.

The Court declined to allow a group of states to participate in the oral argument in Riegel.

The orders can be found here. Further orders out of Friday’s private Conference will be released at 10 a.m. Tuesday. Monday is a holiday at the Court.

tgriffin
11-09-2007, 12:43 PM
Damn it damn it damn it. Im still going to buy a gun today to celebrate.

Robert1234
11-09-2007, 7:56 PM
[QUOTE=aileron;828414]I dont know, this kind of stresses me out. I think I need more than popcorn, maybe a beer. We don't have a beer icon.

:eek::(WE DON'T HAVE A BEER ICON:eek:!?!?!?!?!?! That's a travesty. Please say it ain't so!!! My faith in this site for valuable information on issues near and dear to my heart is shaken. I feel betrayed. I may never recover.

We must get a beer icon and soon!!! My God, what's the world coming to? Why oh why don't we have a beer icon?!?!:43:

Hanniballs
11-09-2007, 9:09 PM
[QUOTE=aileron;828414]I dont know, this kind of stresses me out. I think I need more than popcorn, maybe a beer. We don't have a beer icon.

:eek::(WE DON'T HAVE A BEER ICON:eek:!?!?!?!?!?! That's a travesty. Please say it ain't so!!! My faith in this site for valuable information on issues near and dear to my heart is shaken. I feel betrayed. I may never recover.

We must get a beer icon and soon!!! My God, what's the world coming to? Why oh why don't we have a beer icon?!?!:43:

http://www.mustangworld.com/forums/images/smilies/Haveabeer.gif

aileron
11-10-2007, 8:50 AM
Yea I couldnt find it, I could of sworn we did have one.

So we do. :D My bad.

:cheers2:

Patriot
11-10-2007, 9:48 AM
Amicus brief of the American Academy of Pediatrics (in support of petitioner)


Anyone read this brief? Their argument is essentially that guns are dangerous :rolleyes: and that DC's "reasonsable restrictions" are justified because [hand]guns increase violence/accidents.

A few gems:

"Handguns make suicide attempts more likely and more injurious." Right, because longarm suicides are so much LESS lethal.

Suicide victims that do not have guns are significantly less likely to commit suicide with a gun.

They use the traditional inflation of numbers in determining firearm incidents involving children (10-19). I guess they didn't go into the 20s - as is usually the case - because someone might call them on their B.S.

Amicus brief of New York, Hawaii, Illinois, and Maryland (in support of petitioner)

The argument synopsis for the NY/HI/MD brief speaks for itself :43:

Granting Absolute Protection to “Lineal Descendants” of Founding-Era Weapons in “Common Use” Today Creates an Unmanageable standard

Someone should tell these guys to be careful what they wish for (certiorari). Guess they never heard of cutting their losses.

bohoki
11-10-2007, 10:33 AM
i'm betting that they will not re-hear the case and dc will ignore the ruling stating that untill the highest court rules they are not following this lower courts ruling

Patriot
11-10-2007, 10:43 AM
i'm betting that they will not re-hear the case and dc will ignore the ruling stating that untill the highest court rules they are not following this lower courts ruling

:confused: Either SCOTUS grants certiorari and hears the case, or they don't, which is practically-speaking an implicit affirmation of the lower court's ruling.

I agree that DC will try to get away with as much as possible.

But if SCOTUS denies certiorari, the lower court decision stands. FWIW, if DC did what you described they'd be positioning themselves for a major smackdown, what with ignoring a court ruling and all ;)

subdjoe
11-10-2007, 11:40 AM
This looks like a good place to post some comments by some of the founders.

Jeffferson: I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people' (10th Amendment). To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible to any definition.

Hamilton: No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy (agent) is greater than his principal; that the servant is above the master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people; that men, acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. It is not to be supposed that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by judges as fundamental law. If there should happen to be a irreconcilable variance between the two, the Constitution is to be preferred to the statute.

Tench Cox: The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

Adams: And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions

subdjoe
11-10-2007, 1:53 PM
Actually, this scares the beejeebers out of me. One never knows HOW the USSC will rule on anything. Just look at how it struck down the 5th with the Kelo v. New London ruling. It's going to be close, folks.

hoffmang
11-12-2007, 4:25 PM
The most interesting question around the Cert grant is which question(s) they grant on. The questions will be very indicative of which side we're heading towards.

I think the issue of whether they grant or not is moot. They'll grant this and if it isn't Tuesday morning it will be soon.

-Gene

sholling
11-13-2007, 12:58 AM
Actually, this scares the beejeebers out of me. One never knows HOW the USSC will rule on anything. Just look at how it struck down the 5th with the Kelo v. New London ruling. It's going to be close, folks.I agree that this could go either way. My own hunch is that there is a 51% chance that if they review the case that they will rule that the 2nd is an individual right, and a 49% chance that they will effectively strip it from the constitution. The only thing worse is waiting until Hillary appoints a couple of justices at which point it becomes 5 to 4 against us.

chico.cm
11-13-2007, 7:20 AM
We got postponed until the 2oth. Drats!