Quote:
Originally Posted by bruss01
IMHO they are debating whether to factor in the "Chester" decision, and cite a standard of scrutiny. Some of the justices may be reluctant to go with "Chester" on scrutiny because it means a LOT of gun laws will be found not to pass muster. Generally, they try to cause as little havoc as possible while still granting a good judgment. However, they will probably also be reluctant to go against "Chester" on scrutiny because that causes a circuit split which in the current climate is likely go to SCOTUS, who will (based on Heller & McDonald outcomes) lower the boom and then they get over-ruled, and no court likes that. So I think it comes down to them trying to craft a ruling that MOSTLY goes along with "Chester"... trying to preserve as much existing law as possible, while leaving enough leeway to not be seen as a direct contradiction of "Chester" and therefore probably avoiding a legal challenge anytime soon. They kind of have to address scrutiny at some point. Nordyke seems like the logical place to do that, because they can already see the gun cases piling up in the pipeline behind Nordyke. It also gives them a window to advise lower courts, so they don't get hit with a bunch of appeal cases down the line that they then have to overturn - just making more work for themselves and clogging up the legal system.
So IMHO they are trying to walk a fine line... give sound guidance on scrutiny to lower courts, upset the current legal framework as little as possible, and not leave themselves open to a SCOTUS smackdown. THAT'S what is taking so long, I think.
|
You assume that they care about the court system being clogged with cases. If they're anti-gun, then they surely care nothing about that. In fact, that's a good thing from the point of view of retaining current law since having a bunch of cases stayed will indefinitely extend the amount of time current law remains on the books.
It's not like they're making extra work for themselves or lower courts by not rendering a ruling, either. Cases that are stayed do not occupy the time of the courts. Only active cases do.
And a circuit split can
only happen if they render a ruling.
So if all the anti-gun circuit courts simply refuse to issue rulings then there will be no circuit splits. The only cases that wind up before the Supreme Court will be cases where the defendants in pro-RKBA juristictions are stupid enough to appeal a loss at the circuit court level to the Supreme Court. And
even then, that won't affect anti-gun jurisdictions until the courts in those jurisdictions actually start to issue rulings. Which is to say, even if the Supreme Court issues guidance as to things like scrutiny to lower courts, if those courts have cases before them they can
still just sit on them, with the end result that their anti-RKBA agenda will continue to be satisfied.