PDA

View Full Version : Heller Delays - Political Angle


Wulf
11-13-2007, 1:26 PM
It seems like the more they delay Heller the more potential the case has to make political waves, getting deeper and deeper into the election year.

Hopefully the justices will remain immune to the politics, but, the Heller case could sure make for some interesting debate questions and political angeling.

Does the potential politicizing help or hurt 2nd Amendment fortunes? Will having Heller out there cut into conservatives like Romney and Giuliani who have mushy 2nd track records?

hoffmang
11-13-2007, 1:39 PM
I do think that there may be some desire to delay here from a "who gets to pick the next Justices" point of view. However, I would think they'd have to hold this case over to next term to get out of issuing an opinion before August of 2008.

It's either don't grant Cert, or give us an opinion before election time in 90% of the situations. As such, I can't see what the best way to play it would be for a Justice who wants a Dem president. Lots of arguments cut lots of different ways.

-Gene

Bizcuits
11-13-2007, 2:25 PM
It's a political A-Bomb.

Look at all the money, time, people and jobs which are invested into the Pro and Anti sides of the 2nd. The political battle of the 2nd is the longest and biggest battle fought. They have a lot of pressure on this, as their decision either way, will change a lot on the political front for everyone.

I'm not surprised at all of the delay. I tend to think they won't take the case, as of how big it is, any verdict would really change America.

If they go against it... How many more anti-gun laws will pop up and where will it stop? Basically putting in place, "hay you really don't have a right to own guns, this then paves way for civil unrest."

If they go for it.... How many Dem's and Anti guns will scream, using their greatest weapons to fight it. "Media, Money and Lies", Sure the ruling will have already been made, but this won't stop their fight or their slander.

bg
11-13-2007, 6:26 PM
I for one don't have any problems with seeing the anti's take a nose dive..

CCWFacts
11-13-2007, 11:01 PM
I think they will take it, for the reasons everyone has said. Never mind the politics, this case was made for them to take. They have had to take on political A-bombs before, like ending segregation. That's their job.

hoffmang
11-13-2007, 11:08 PM
Remember - not taking it is still a win for our side.

-Gene

Wulf
11-14-2007, 6:27 AM
Doesnt not taking it effectively say, "We're ok with the district courts being all over the map on this." Effectively saying that 2nd is not incorporated.

tgriffin
11-14-2007, 8:52 AM
Doesnt not taking it effectively say, "We're ok with the district courts being all over the map on this." Effectively saying that 2nd is not incorporated.

No. Not granting cert upholds the original ruling of Parker, creating precedent that can be used in future cases. It also grants the residents of DC the much needed right to self defense with firearms. In some ways, NOT granting cert could be the best possible outcome we could hope to have.

At this point, it is my belief, that the only reason that cert will not be granted is if Roberts et al believe that Heller is not strong enough a case to create precedent upon and stand the test of time. With the precedent set by Parker, new cases built incorporating the lessons learned (i.e. standing and refinement of focus of question to be tested) from Heller stand an even better chance of ultimately achieving our goal of having the 2nd amendment unequivicably determined to be a individual versus collective right.

Edit: Addressing the issue of incorporation: DC's unique legal status as a 'district' rather than strickly a state has its advantages as well in the event that SCOTUS doesnt grant cert. Additional cases can be built on the premise of incorporation under the 14th as relates to the upheld (in the case of no cert) precedent set by Parker vs DC.

Bottom line: 'No cert' is not the end of the world, it is in fact merely the beginning of additional legal battles with the promise of yielding a much brighter future for the gun owners of America.

cadurand
11-14-2007, 9:35 AM
The court not taking a case because it's "too hot" doesn't make sense. That's why the court exists. They clear things like this up. Well they are supposed to clear things up. They didn't do the best job with the Miller case but they didn't know Miller was going to die on them either.

I am sure the same arguments could have been for not hearing slavery, segregation, and abortion cases. They still ruled on those cases even though they were going to change America. That's was the whole point.

If they don't hear the case I don't think it's political. Well maybe that's naive on my part.. everything in Washington D.C. is political. Still I think they'll hear the case. This is their chance to do their jobs and be in the spotlight. They'll hear the case. If they heard the Anna Nicole Smith case they sure as hell better hear this one.

It's the focus of their decision I'm waiting to see.

mblat
11-14-2007, 9:40 AM
If you are Roberts..... you have to be nuts not wanting to take the case. How often judges have a chance to rule on meaning of one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights? And not some **** like "does pornography protected by the First?" But truly "what the hell does it mean?"
This isn't even a Super Bowl. After all Super Bowl are played every year. This doesn't come around often. He must itch to take it....

Bizcuits
11-14-2007, 10:27 AM
If you are Roberts..... you have to be nuts not wanting to take the case. How often judges have a chance to rule on meaning of one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights? And not some **** like "does pornography protected by the First?" But truly "what the hell does it mean?"
This isn't even a Super Bowl. After all Super Bowl are played every year. This doesn't come around often. He must itch to take it....

You make a good point, but there is a flip side to this to, which is what I'm afraid of, the "to hot for me". Although I do hope your right and it is viewed as a blessing and once in a life time chance.

hoffmang
11-14-2007, 11:00 AM
Not granting cert leaves the decision in place in DC as explained above. However, DC is special in that any US Citizen can bring a case in DC against the any Federal law... Having the Second Amendment be very real with precedence in the DC Circuit would be a huge win for us.

-Gene

bruss01
11-14-2007, 2:43 PM
All 9 of those robed figures are real flesh and blood people who have families (spouses, children, grandchildren). Even if they are so noble that they are incorruptible in the face of blackmail or even threat of physical harm, is it impossible one or more of them might crumble before the pressure of threat to one or more of their families? Anyone who thinks there aren't plots and skullduggery afoot in Washington just go back and read the newspapers of the last 30-40 years. If the right powerful people decide they want this to go a certain way, they will see to it that it happens.

Never mind me though, that's just the tinfoil talking.