Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #8521  
Old 05-19-2017, 12:51 PM
baggss's Avatar
baggss baggss is offline
Stoopid American Redneck™
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Eastern Ventura County
Posts: 2,583
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by champu View Post

In Peruta, a remand wouldn't be the end of things, we would be back to en banc in the 9th circuit and they would have to try and contort logic further to uphold the bans consistent with whatever clarifying rules were present in the remand order.
So a remand could, for instance, tell the lower court to use strict scrutiny in rehearing the case?
__________________
"The best gun is the one you'll have on you when you need it the most, the one you know how to use, the one that goes BANG every single time you pull the trigger. Whether that gun cost you $349 or $1,100 it's worth every penny if it saves your life, or the life of someone you love.” -Tim Schmit, CCW Magazine July 2015


  #8522  
Old 05-19-2017, 12:52 PM
butchy_boy's Avatar
butchy_boy butchy_boy is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Nashua, NH
Posts: 88
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Is there any reason why they couldn't remand with instructions to rehear with strict scrutiny given OC is banned? Seems like the En Banc panel purposely glazed over that fact.
  #8523  
Old 05-19-2017, 1:54 PM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 404
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baggss View Post
So a remand could, for instance, tell the lower court to use strict scrutiny in rehearing the case?
Quote:
Originally Posted by butchy_boy View Post
Is there any reason why they couldn't remand with instructions to rehear with strict scrutiny given OC is banned? Seems like the En Banc panel purposely glazed over that fact.
They could do that, sure. I don't think it's likely for them to say "strict scrutiny must be used" if there is a remand here, though. They would probably just say, "You can't ignore the fact that open carry is also banned, try again."

Then, if the 9th circuit's updated decision against us gets appealed back to SCOTUS, and they felt the wrong level of scrutiny was applied when justifying the total carry ban, they would grant cert and issue a ruling accordingly.
  #8524  
Old 05-19-2017, 1:59 PM
Phiremin Phiremin is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 68
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kharn View Post
Grant, Vacate, Remand (GVR), the worst insult the Court can give as it's a one-liner equivalent to "you've really screwed up, apply proper precedent from case ___ and try again"
Vacating would be letting them off too easily. They get a clean slate. Make them answer "is there a right to carry in some form" in a manner consistent with their previous opinion that "there isn't a right to conceal, but maybe there is a right to open carry".
It will make the gymnastics much more convoluted and fun to watch.
  #8525  
Old 05-19-2017, 2:31 PM
Phiremin Phiremin is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 68
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
I'm interested to see if Gorsuch or Roberts concurs when dissent of cert is published. That will be telling.
If Roberts were on board, there would be no need for a dissent because that would be 4 votes.
What would be really interesting is if Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch sign. That would basically call out Roberts as the turncoat. I already assume Kennedy isn't really interested in taking the case.
  #8526  
Old 05-19-2017, 2:57 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 3,565
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phiremin View Post
If Roberts were on board, there would be no need for a dissent because that would be 4 votes.
What would be really interesting is if Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch sign. That would basically call out Roberts as the turncoat. I already assume Kennedy isn't really interested in taking the case.

Roberts concurring means we need to replace Kennedy, not both. At this point we aren't sure if it's one, or the other, or both. The four concurring would point to Kennedy as the hold out. I understand you only need four to hear the case, but that doesn't mean taking it is a good idea. I'm not sure what's your point.
  #8527  
Old 05-19-2017, 3:03 PM
Phiremin Phiremin is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 68
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by champu View Post
A good example of a remand was Caetano v. Massachusetts which can be read here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...10078_aplc.pdf

NB: That decision did not strike down the ban on stun gun possession, which seems to be a common misconception (elsewhere if not on this forum.) What it did was tell the lower court, "We may or may not agree with your ends, but your means were no good. You can't use the arguments that the weapon in question was not around in the 18th century or that it isn't suited for military use. Try again." The prosecution simply dropped the case before it was reheard, so Caetano was really the only person that decision helped.
I would argue that while it didn't directly strike down an all out ban on stun guns, its hard to read that decision in a way that would allow an all out to stand constitutional muster.
Of course, as you correctly conclude, it didn't go as far as overturning the law. But I guess what can you expect from a unanimous decision that was unopposed by Ginsberg.
Could they get away with regulating to death? Probably.
But the decision does extend beyond just Caetano. NJ's stun gun ban was challenged after this and NJ conceded it's ban was probably unconstitutional in light of this decision. As such, it is in the process or writing overly burdensome regulations that will allow (at least on paper) stun gun ownership in some form
  #8528  
Old 05-19-2017, 3:39 PM
Phiremin Phiremin is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 68
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
Roberts concurring means we need to replace Kennedy, not both. At this point we aren't sure if it's one, or the other, or both. The four concurring would point to Kennedy as the hold out. I understand you only need four to hear the case, but that doesn't mean taking it is a good idea. I'm not sure what's your point.
The point is that Roberts, in my opinion, is the 4th vote needed for cert. There have been several dissents from cert on gun cases. This tells me that the denials of cert are probably not "strategic denials" (Scalia doesn't vote for cert because he is afraid of losing), but rather simply a matter of not having a 4th vote.
Since Heller, Scalia, Thomas and Alito have all signaled their support for Heller. Scalia and Thomas with dissents and Alito with a concurring opinion in Caetano.
This points to "no" votes from Roberts and Kennedy. So, like I said, if Roberts is a "yes", they probably take the case.
  #8529  
Old 05-19-2017, 3:45 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 3,565
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phiremin View Post
The point is that Roberts, in my opinion, is the 4th vote needed for cert. There have been several dissents from cert on gun cases. This tells me that the denials of cert are probably not "strategic denials" (Scalia doesn't vote for cert because he is afraid of losing), but rather simply a matter of not having a 4th vote.
Since Heller, Scalia, Thomas and Alito have all signaled their support for Heller. Scalia and Thomas with dissents and Alito with a concurring opinion in Caetano.
This points to "no" votes from Roberts and Kennedy. So, like I said, if Roberts is a "yes", they probably take the case.
So you think they'd take the case fully aware that Kennedy is going to vote against it?

I seriously doubt that.
  #8530  
Old 05-19-2017, 4:05 PM
bruss01's Avatar
bruss01 bruss01 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,318
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by champu View Post
They could do that, sure. I don't think it's likely for them to say "strict scrutiny must be used" if there is a remand here, though. They would probably just say, "You can't ignore the fact that open carry is also banned, try again."

Then, if the 9th circuit's updated decision against us gets appealed back to SCOTUS, and they felt the wrong level of scrutiny was applied when justifying the total carry ban, they would grant cert and issue a ruling accordingly.
Yep, this - they would likely say "You dodged the actual question ("Can ALL forms of carry be essentially banned?") now go back, man up, and come back with a REAL answer... then we'll see if we agree or not"
__________________
The one thing worse than defeat is surrender.
  #8531  
Old 05-19-2017, 4:43 PM
Phiremin Phiremin is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 68
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
So you think they'd take the case fully aware that Kennedy is going to vote against it?

I seriously doubt that.
Kennedy signed onto the Heller and McDonald majority opinions. It would be hard for him to do a 180 at this point. I also don't think he is an ideologue like Ginsburg or Sotomayor, who will simply bend the law to fit their anti-gun opinions. Perhaps I'm being naive, but I think Kennedy would do the right thing, follow the precedent set by Heller and side with Peruta if push came to shove.
That being said, he doesn't want to expand gun rights and therefore isn't going to vote for cert. Roberts might be in the same boat.
That's not to say both Roberts and Heller won't be working to soften any opinion in favor of Heller (giving states leeway to regulate), but if cert was somehow granted, I'm pretty optimistic the court would rule in favor of Heller.
Frankly, if Kennedy wanted to roll back Heller, then they would have already granted Cert to a case and rolled it back.
Cases haven't been grated cert because Kennedy and Roberts knows that means expanding gun rights and they just don't want to do that.
  #8532  
Old 05-20-2017, 8:31 AM
Southwest Chuck Southwest Chuck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 1,948
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peaceful John View Post
SCOTUS has overcome every opportunity to issue a clear 2nd A ruling for a projectile weapon outside the home. There is no reason to believe this might have changed because J. Gorsuch is now seated, as he simply replaces a previous conservative Justice.
Sure there is and I'll tell you why .....

What rarely is mentioned, is the personal and professional relationship Gorsuch has had with Kennedy over the years. THAT .... cannot be understated. That was exemplified by Kennedy swearing in Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Gorsuch clerked for Kennedy at SCOTUS. All indications are that they held a very high regard for each other and developed a respected personal and professional relationship during their time together.

Now, the student is returning, a Master himself, now. I'm sure Kennedy followed Gorsuch's career after their tenure together, with interest. Given the fact that Gorsuch was confirmed near unanimously to the 10th Circuit must have made Kennedy very proud. Now he is an equal, and it would not be an understatement, that Kennedy wants him to succeed. It is on this basis, that I believe that Kennedy is more than sway-able towards a positive outcome in Peruta. That wholly depends of course, on Gorsuch's drive to uphold Heller and the 2nd A. By re-enforcing Kennedy's decision (to support Heller's original holdings) as proper and true (to Kennedy, himself), and to emphasize the importance of the case (given the lower courts constant rejection of Heller), Kennedy just might step up. Actually, I personally feel the odds are good on this outcome. It's all dependant on Gorsuch, however.

On the flip side, Kennedy on the other hand, nearing retirement, would have a natural predilection to support Gorsuch (due to the above) in such a major case, all other things being equal. Again, he wants Gorsuch to succeed and establish his presence on the Supreme Court early. How better to do it than to be tapped to write an opinion that upholds and re-enforces Holding(s) in which Kennedy had a pivitol, historic deciding vote?

My thoughts are bolded in red below .....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phiremin View Post
Kennedy signed onto the Heller and McDonald majority opinions. It would be hard for him to do a 180 at this point. I also don't think he is an ideologue like Ginsburg or Sotomayor, who will simply bend the law to fit their anti-gun opinions. Perhaps I'm being naive, but I think Kennedy would do the right thing, follow the precedent set by Heller and side with Peruta if push came to shove.

^^^ I wholeheartedly agree, especially given my response above ...



That being said, he doesn't want to expand gun rights and therefore isn't going to vote for cert.

^^^ Up until Gorsuch was confirmed, I would have agreed with your statement here, but Again, based on my supposition above, I'll have to change my opinion and happily disagree ...

Roberts might be in the same boat.
That's not to say both Roberts and Heller won't be working to soften any opinion in favor of Heller (giving states leeway to regulate), but if cert was somehow granted, I'm pretty optimistic the court would rule in favor of Heller.

^^^ Agreed

Frankly, if Kennedy wanted to roll back Heller, then they would have already granted Cert to a case and rolled it back.

^^^ I agree again ....


Cases haven't been grated cert because Kennedy and Roberts knows that means expanding gun rights and they just don't want to do that.

^^^ Not sure here, but I believe they know that 2A issues are coming to a head. With the 9th's Enbanc decision blatantly throwing the gauntlet down in front of SCOTUS, I feel that they know they must act, however reluctantly.

Maybe I'm totally off base, but I don't think so. It's as plausible as any other theory / conjecture that has been put forth so far. At least as far as I'm concerned ....

One should NEVER discount personal relationships when accounting for outcomes, one way or another. They are alway a factor. How much is a guest-a-met, though .....

As far as Roberts goes, IMHO, if the above happens, he'll have no choice but to go with the flow, in the end ......

OK, now time to dawn my tin foil hat and go out on a termite ridden limb ... but a statement first ..... Over the course of this case (and many others), KCBrown has made a nice campfire and is at times very compelling, and I must admit I visit his place once in awhile, and stay there for extended visits ...... but I'm not totally in his camp yet, ready to set up my tent . I still have some optimism left in me KC. Not much, but some, lol ....

Cert Granted ... 40%
Cert Denied ... 40%
GVR w/specific, favorable instructions ... 15%
Per curium ... 5%

If Cert is Denied, I'll start packing my camping gear, KC .....

S.C.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
I am humbled at the efforts of so many Patriots on this and other forums, CGN, CGF, SAF, NRA, CRPF, MDS etc. etc. I am lucky to be living in an era of a new awakening of the American Spirit; One that embraces it's Constitutional History, and it's Founding Fathers vision, especially in an age of such uncertainty that we are now in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by toby View Post
Go cheap you will always have cheap and if you sell, it will sell for even cheaper. Buy the best you can every time.
^^^ Wise Man. Take his advice

Last edited by Southwest Chuck; 05-20-2017 at 12:21 PM..
  #8533  
Old 05-20-2017, 1:00 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,710
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by butchy_boy View Post
Is there any reason why they couldn't remand with instructions to rehear with strict scrutiny given OC is banned? Seems like the En Banc panel purposely glazed over that fact.
That's sorta like a judge directing a couple who comes for divorce paperwork that when they divorce they're not allowed to marry again. It's such a YUGE sea change from how they've let other lower courts consistently use the intermediate scrutiny two step, it's hard to imagine them changing things without directly taking the case: it's actually on stronger ground that intermediate scrutiny is the right level because nowhere has used strict. Of course, just taking the can would be an even bigger change in tempo and business as usual it's totally possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phiremin View Post
Vacating would be letting them off too easily. They get a clean slate. Make them answer "is there a right to carry in some form" in a manner consistent with their previous opinion that "there isn't a right to conceal, but maybe there is a right to open carry".
It will make the gymnastics much more convoluted and fun to watch.
Agreed. I wonder if they would issue such mean instructions on a partisan GVR, as it would be a fiercely divided decision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phiremin View Post
If Roberts were on board, there would be no need for a dissent because that would be 4 votes.
What would be really interesting is if Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch sign. That would basically call out Roberts as the turncoat. I already assume Kennedy isn't really interested in taking the case.
Let's remember, he does get seizures. There might be something to pray for, timing and stairs...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phiremin View Post
The point is that Roberts, in my opinion, is the 4th vote needed for cert. There have been several dissents from cert on gun cases. This tells me that the denials of cert are probably not "strategic denials" (Scalia doesn't vote for cert because he is afraid of losing), but rather simply a matter of not having a 4th vote.
Since Heller, Scalia, Thomas and Alito have all signaled their support for Heller. Scalia and Thomas with dissents and Alito with a concurring opinion in Caetano.
This points to "no" votes from Roberts and Kennedy. So, like I said, if Roberts is a "yes", they probably take the case.
Interesting theory. Thank you for that one! It's new here. I had some similar thoughts along those lines, but never fully matured or explicated. Very nice!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phiremin View Post
Kennedy signed onto the Heller and McDonald majority opinions. It would be hard for him to do a 180 at this point. I also don't think he is an ideologue like Ginsburg or Sotomayor, who will simply bend the law to fit their anti-gun opinions. Perhaps I'm being naive, but I think Kennedy would do the right thing, follow the precedent set by Heller and side with Peruta if push came to shove.
That being said, he doesn't want to expand gun rights and therefore isn't going to vote for cert. Roberts might be in the same boat.
That's not to say both Roberts and Heller won't be working to soften any opinion in favor of Heller (giving states leeway to regulate), but if cert was somehow granted, I'm pretty optimistic the court would rule in favor of Heller.
Frankly, if Kennedy wanted to roll back Heller, then they would have already granted Cert to a case and rolled it back.
Cases haven't been grated cert because Kennedy and Roberts knows that means expanding gun rights and they just don't want to do that.
If they don't want to do it, then isn't that implying though that they are outcome rather than law based, which is part of the argument most have used to discount the Kcbrown dismal theories.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
Sure there is and I'll tell you why .....

What rarely is mentioned, is the personal and professional relationship Gorsuch has had with Kennedy over the years. THAT .... cannot be understated. That was exemplified by Kennedy swearing in Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Gorsuch clerked for Kennedy at SCOTUS. All indications are that they held a very high regard for each other and developed a respected personal and professional relationship during their time together.

Now, the student is returning, a Master himself, now. I'm sure Kennedy followed Gorsuch's career after their tenure together, with interest. Given the fact that Gorsuch was confirmed near unanimously to the 10th Circuit must have made Kennedy very proud. Now he is an equal, and it would not be an understatement, that Kennedy wants him to succeed. It is on this basis, that I believe that Kennedy is more than sway-able towards a positive outcome in Peruta. That wholly depends of course, on Gorsuch's drive to uphold Heller and the 2nd A. By re-enforcing Kennedy's decision (to support Heller's original holdings) as proper and true (to Kennedy, himself), and to emphasize the importance of the case (given the lower courts constant rejection of Heller), Kennedy just might step up. Actually, I personally feel the odds are good on this outcome. It's all dependant on Gorsuch, however.

On the flip side, Kennedy on the other hand, nearing retirement, would have a natural predilection to support Gorsuch (due to the above) in such a major case, all other things being equal. Again, he wants Gorsuch to succeed and establish his presence on the Supreme Court early. How better to do it than to be tapped to write an opinion that upholds and re-enforces Holding(s) in which Kennedy had a pivitol, historic deciding vote?

My thoughts are bolded in red below .....



Maybe I'm totally off base, but I don't think so. It's as plausible as any other theory / conjecture that has been put forth so far. At least as far as I'm concerned ....

One should NEVER discount personal relationships when accounting for outcomes, one way or another. They are alway a factor. How much is a guest-a-met, though .....

As far as Roberts goes, IMHO, if the above happens, he'll have no choice but to go with the flow, in the end ......

OK, now time to dawn my tin foil hat and go out on a termite ridden limb ... but a statement first ..... over the course of this case (and many others) KCBrown has made a nice campfire and is at times very compelling, and I must admit I visit his place once in awhile, and stay there for extended visits ...... but I'm not totally in his camp yet, ready to set up my tent . I still have some optimism left in me KC. Not much, but some ....

Cert Granted ... 40%
Cert Denied ... 40%
GVR w/specific, favorable instructions ... 15%
Per curium ... 5%


S.C.
Hi chuck! I'm on mobile so I'm not going I filled your quote and address each one in good formatting. I might finback and edit to do that, but I feel it's important to give a quick response.

I like to consider myself a Kcbrown QRF response unit.

So, the big question: what would it take to get you on board 100%?

So first off, as a Kcbrown follower, there's an ongoing joke about him being the emperor, spreading his dark message. So when you talk about Gorsuch leaving a student but returning a master, you MUST reference Obi Wan and Darth Vader, "When I left you I was but a learner, now I am the master."
And I could see Kennedy being a sentimental soft touch. I like your theory because Gorsuch is the sexiest Justice in my lifetime, and I'm having a very hard time thinking of a comparable one from the mid 20th century on. He also seems like a natural gladhander, so he looks like a hell of a salesman.

As for the bulk of your response: another eloquent and meaty argument that has not appeared here before. Thank you for that! I would note though that these new arguments all spring from the idea of justices as humans and explanations based on that, not the law. Which makes everyone at least a bit a Kcbrown, as it's no longer about law but outcome and emotion based.

As for an opinion written by Gorsuch: as fun as that is, unlikely. That move itself would sound the death knell for tradition ad decorum of SCOTUS. Giving Gorsuch a YUGE opinion this early?? Maybe if Peruta was pushed off to another session. Further, unless Thomas is real as stupid as all his critics say, I can't imagine he wouldn't want to take the decision. An even more staunch originalist, extending the legacy of his longtime friend Scalia; and a gun rights case written favorably by a black man, known for his no compromise beliefs?

It would seem very, very offensive and would signal a major breach of etiquette in the last "grand" /non-smeared of the three branches to grant the case to Gorusch.

Lastly, THANK YOU for the odds!
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
  #8534  
Old 05-20-2017, 1:02 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 3,565
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phiremin View Post
Kennedy signed onto the Heller and McDonald majority opinions. It would be hard for him to do a 180 at this point. I also don't think he is an ideologue like Ginsburg or Sotomayor, who will simply bend the law to fit their anti-gun opinions. Perhaps I'm being naive, but I think Kennedy would do the right thing, follow the precedent set by Heller and side with Peruta if push came to shove.
That being said, he doesn't want to expand gun rights and therefore isn't going to vote for cert. Roberts might be in the same boat.
That's not to say both Roberts and Heller won't be working to soften any opinion in favor of Heller (giving states leeway to regulate), but if cert was somehow granted, I'm pretty optimistic the court would rule in favor of Heller.
Frankly, if Kennedy wanted to roll back Heller, then they would have already granted Cert to a case and rolled it back.
Cases haven't been grated cert because Kennedy and Roberts knows that means expanding gun rights and they just don't want to do that.
Kennedy OR Roberts or both, which is exactly why Roberts concurring would be very telling of who is holding out.
  #8535  
Old 05-20-2017, 2:36 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,053
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
OK, now time to dawn my tin foil hat and go out on a termite ridden limb ... but a statement first ..... Over the course of this case (and many others), KCBrown has made a nice campfire and is at times very compelling, and I must admit I visit his place once in awhile, and stay there for extended visits ...... but I'm not totally in his camp yet, ready to set up my tent . I still have some optimism left in me KC. Not much, but some, lol ....
That's okay. It's mainly unjustified optimism that I have a problem with. Yours isn't unjustified and, in fact, you make a good argument for it.


Quote:
Cert Granted ... 40%
Cert Denied ... 40%
GVR w/specific, favorable instructions ... 15%
Per curium ... 5%
That said, I do disagree with the odds you cite here. Why? Because a cert grant (or positive GVR, or especially per curium) doesn't just mean that 4 have agreed to hear the case. It means that at least 5 are in agreement on the outcome of the case.

Even if Gorsuch manages to convince Kennedy that this case is worth taking and worth deciding upon in favor of the right to arms, that still leaves Roberts.

Why is Roberts a major concern here? Simple: he hasn't signed onto a single dissent of denial of cert and, more importantly, he didn't sign onto Alito's concurrence in Caetano. That is pretty powerful suggestive evidence that he has abandoned any interest in securing the right to arms beyond the minimum possible.

Without Roberts, we'll see a denial of cert, precisely because you have to be able to count to 5, not just 4, in order to get a grant of cert in a case like this. There's no way anyone on the Court is leaving the outcome of this one up to chance.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

Last edited by kcbrown; 05-20-2017 at 5:47 PM..
  #8536  
Old 05-20-2017, 4:27 PM
butchy_boy's Avatar
butchy_boy butchy_boy is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Nashua, NH
Posts: 88
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Interesting, ties into the hypothesis that conservative judges may be voting no because they know they don't have 5 votes.
  #8537  
Old 05-20-2017, 5:04 PM
RussG1's Avatar
RussG1 RussG1 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: San Jose Calif
Posts: 98
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
That's okay. It's mainly unjustified optimism that I have a problem with. Yours isn't unjustified and, in fact, you make a good argument for it.




That said, I do disagree with the odds you cite here. Why? Because a cert grant (or positive GVR, or especially per curium) doesn't just mean that 4 have agreed to hear the case. It means that at least 5 are in agreement on the outcome of the case.

Even if Gorsuch manages to convince Kennedy that this case is worth taking and worth deciding upon in favor of the right to arms, that still leaves Roberts.

Why is Roberts a major concern here? Simple: he hasn't signed onto a single dissent of denial of cert but, more importantly, he didn't sign onto Alito's concurrence in Caetano. That is pretty powerful suggestive evidence that he has abandoned any interest in securing the right to arms beyond the minimum possible.

Without Roberts, we'll see a denial of cert, precisely because you have to be able to count to 5, not just 4, in order to get a grant of cert in a case like this. There's no way anyone on the Court is leaving the outcome of this one up to chance.
100% agree--- 5 or nothing
  #8538  
Old 05-20-2017, 9:18 PM
Southwest Chuck Southwest Chuck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 1,948
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post



Hi chuck!

So, the big question: what would it take to get you on board 100%?
Well, here's what would push me over the proverbial edge into the KCbrown Camp for good ....

Peruta Denial .... as I said, I would start packing my camping gear.
Kolby Denial .... I would get it loaded up.
Norman Denial .... ..... .... ....
^^^ I would file an unlawful detainer against you and KC, evict you, set my own camp up, and then lease a campsite back to you both, so at least you'll have ONE PLACE in CA that'll still be legal for you to Open AND Conceal Carry... (I'm not THAT heartless, lol)


Quote:
So first off, as a Kcbrown follower, there's an ongoing joke about him being the emperor, spreading his dark message.
I've been around a while. I know how KC thinks. We've debated before. His thoughts are consistently well thought out and logical; based on real world observations and conclusions based on them. Most are hard to rationally and logically refute. Sometimes though, there is too much rigidity to them. There is sometimes, something missing in his positions. The intangible. The human factor if you will. That was what I was trying to put forth in my original post, (that you picked up on). But to his credit, KC does acknowledge the intangibles from time to time and it's those intangibles that gives us all a surprise, every once in a while (or Blue Moon if you will)

Quote:
So when you talk about Gorsuch leaving a student but returning a master, you MUST reference Obi Wan and Darth Vader, "When I left you I was but a learner, now I am the master."
Movies are fun but they are Fantasy . No, This (Gorsuch/Kennedy connection) is real life, and could have real life consequences for our Rights. (... and honestly, the Star Wars connection never initially occurred to me when I originally wrote that, lol, it was just a fact )


Quote:
As for the bulk of your response: another eloquent and meaty argument that has not appeared here before. Thank you for that! I would note though that these new arguments all spring from the idea of justices as humans and explanations based on that, not the law.
Thanks. Been ruminating on it for awhile .....

After all, the enbanc decision from the 9th was not based on the law (or the case as presented to it). Arguments (Court Challenges) based on the law are fruitless against judges who rule by a predetermined outcomes or emotions, or ideology.


Quote:
As for an opinion written by Gorsuch: as fun as that is, unlikely. That move itself would sound the death knell for tradition ad decorum of SCOTUS.
Oh I know that the odds of Gorsuch writing the opinion would be astronomical, lol. It was just such a fun thought, I just had to go there



Quote:
Lastly, THANK YOU for the odds!


Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
That's okay. It's mainly unjustified optimism that I have a problem with. Yours isn't unjustified and, in fact, you make a good argument for it.
Thanks




Quote:
That said, I do disagree with the odds you cite here. Why? Because a cert grant (or positive GVR, or especially per curium) doesn't just mean that 4 have agreed to hear the case. It means that at least 5 are in agreement on the outcome of the case.
That gives me even more optimisum Since 3 out of 4 scenarios are positive for us, that means we have a 75% chance of a positive out come, lol I'll take it !!!

(wish it were that simple. Did my sarcasum show much ?)

Quote:
Even if Gorsuch manages to convince Kennedy that this case is worth taking and worth deciding upon in favor of the right to arms, that still leaves Roberts.
Stop right there. Kennedy is all we need. It puts Roberts in the position of either supporting our 2A rights or Denying them. Given his public demonization after his Obamacare decision, do you really think he would ultimately vote to reject our fundamental 2A rights? If he did, his legacy would be cemented into History, and he knows it (or would know it). Legacy matters to the powerful. Being a pivitol vote in our favor would all but wipe out the bastard of a decision in Obamacare.

Quote:
Why is Roberts a major concern here? Simple: he hasn't signed onto a single dissent of denial of cert and, more importantly, he didn't sign onto Alito's concurrence in Caetano. That is pretty powerful suggestive evidence that he has abandoned any interest in securing the right to arms beyond the minimum possible.

Without Roberts, we'll see a denial of cert, precisely because you have to be able to count to 5, not just 4, in order to get a grant of cert in a case like this. There's no way anyone on the Court is leaving the outcome of this one up to chance.
Unassailable. However, I'll reiterate my option for you. No chance involved, my friend. Just a clear choice for the one it eventually falls on. Flat out, I'm of a mind to force the issue, once and for all. 4 for cert. Let the swing Justice (Roberts) be responsible for all hell breaking loose..... (or not). Go all or nothing. I see no need to stretch this out any longer that it has been. Make SCOTUS choose. Either uphold our rights and STOP treating the 2A as a second class right, or eviscerate it. At least we'll know where we stand. Then we can move forward towards an Article V Convention while we (the States) are strong enough to get fixes passed and ratified. The slow, cut by cut death our Rights are experiencing may very well be the death bell for our Republic, if it goes beyond the point of no return (time wise / conservative State wise) to fix it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by butchy_boy View Post
Interesting, ties into the hypothesis that conservative judges may be voting no because they know they don't have 5 votes.
That's my point. Force the issue with 4 and a cert. Make that 5th Justice CHOOSE, for all time, in the Face of History. It's all or nothing. Iif the 9th's enbanc decision stands as is we will be on a slide that IMO, will never be reversed.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
I am humbled at the efforts of so many Patriots on this and other forums, CGN, CGF, SAF, NRA, CRPF, MDS etc. etc. I am lucky to be living in an era of a new awakening of the American Spirit; One that embraces it's Constitutional History, and it's Founding Fathers vision, especially in an age of such uncertainty that we are now in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by toby View Post
Go cheap you will always have cheap and if you sell, it will sell for even cheaper. Buy the best you can every time.
^^^ Wise Man. Take his advice

Last edited by Southwest Chuck; 05-20-2017 at 9:21 PM..
  #8539  
Old 05-20-2017, 10:29 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,053
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
Stop right there. Kennedy is all we need. It puts Roberts in the position of either supporting our 2A rights or Denying them. Given his public demonization after his Obamacare decision, do you really think he would ultimately vote to reject our fundamental 2A rights? If he did, his legacy would be cemented into History, and he knows it (or would know it). Legacy matters to the powerful. Being a pivitol vote in our favor would all but wipe out the bastard of a decision in Obamacare.
And if the votes of the justices were somehow public, this would be an excellent point.

But they're not. The only way we'd know that Roberts was the turncoat is if Kennedy signed on to the dissent for denial of cert (or, of course, the Court granted cert, decided against us, and Roberts sided with the majority).

Ultimately, the problem here is that each justice's position has to be known in advance by all the others for a cert grant to be a rational thing given the nature of the case. As regards this, I haven't a clue whether Roberts' is known to the others or not, but mere belief about the positions won't be enough, given the gravity of the case. If there is uncertainty about being able to count to 5 (even in the face of the angle you raise), then cert will not be granted.


But in the absence of the above, you make an excellent point here, one that I'm actually forced to agree with, at least if Roberts actually cares about being known as the justice who choked the life out of the 2nd Amendment.

This is, ultimately, all about politics.


Quote:
Unassailable. However, I'll reiterate my option for you. No chance involved, my friend. Just a clear choice for the one it eventually falls on. Flat out, I'm of a mind to force the issue, once and for all. 4 for cert. Let the swing Justice (Roberts) be responsible for all hell breaking loose..... (or not). Go all or nothing. I see no need to stretch this out any longer that it has been.
I do: to raise the opportunity for replacement of one or more of the justices (Ginsburg, Kennedy) who have thus far shown themselves to be unwilling, save for when a homeless woman needs to use a stun gun, to support the 2nd Amendment (for Kennedy, that unwillingness probably extends to everything beyond Heller, and for Ginsburg, that unwillingness most certainly extends to everything but Caetano).

If that weren't a very real possibility, I'd be right there with you. But at least one of those justices is due for imminent (as these things go, at any rate) replacement.


Quote:
Make SCOTUS choose. Either uphold our rights and STOP treating the 2A as a second class right, or eviscerate it. At least we'll know where we stand. Then we can move forward towards an Article V Convention while we (the States) are strong enough to get fixes passed and ratified. The slow, cut by cut death our Rights are experiencing may very well be the death bell for our Republic, if it goes beyond the point of no return (time wise / conservative State wise) to fix it.
I believe the timeframe for Article V falls outside of the timeframe for replacement of Ginsburg. That is really the only reason I'm not right there with you. It's pure game theory: you take actions with a timing and sequencing that is designed to maximize your chance of success. Going for broke at SCOTUS now doesn't do that.


Quote:
That's my point. Force the issue with 4 and a cert. Make that 5th Justice CHOOSE, for all time, in the Face of History. It's all or nothing. Iif the 9th's enbanc decision stands as is we will be on a slide that IMO, will never be reversed.
In the face of a denial of cert of a previous case, I know of nothing that forbids challenge of a law later on, even if that law was previously challenged and said challenge failed. If that is not an option, then the calculus of all this changes quite a bit.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
  #8540  
Old 05-21-2017, 4:16 AM
Phiremin Phiremin is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 68
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
And if the votes of the justices were somehow public, this would be an excellent point
Not to put words in Southwest Chuck's mouth, but I think he means that if Kennedy votes for cert, that's 4 votes and they take the case (Gorsuch, Alito, Kennedy & Thomas).
This puts Roberts in the position of having to take a public position. He signs on to the majority option or issues a dissent.
When put on the record, it will be harder for him to do a 180 on Heller.
  #8541  
Old 05-21-2017, 4:43 AM
Phiremin Phiremin is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 68
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
Sure there is and I'll tell you why .....

What rarely is mentioned, is the personal and professional relationship Gorsuch has had with Kennedy over the years. THAT .... cannot be understated. That was exemplified by Kennedy swearing in Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Gorsuch clerked for Kennedy at SCOTUS. All indications are that they held a very high regard for each other and developed a respected personal and professional relationship during their time together.

Now, the student is returning, a Master himself, now. I'm sure Kennedy followed Gorsuch's career after their tenure together, with interest. Given the fact that Gorsuch was confirmed near unanimously to the 10th Circuit must have made Kennedy very proud. Now he is an equal, and it would not be an understatement, that Kennedy wants him to succeed. It is on this basis, that I believe that Kennedy is more than sway-able towards a positive outcome in Peruta. That wholly depends of course, on Gorsuch's drive to uphold Heller
I like your argument about mutual respect and their relationship, but I'd also argue that the door on that swings both ways.
Gorsuch: Master, we need to take this case. A fumdemental constitutional right is being denied.
Kennedy: I admire your enthusiasm young Jedi. But understand, I'm just not comfortable letting everyone carry a gun. Please respect that. I'm retiring soon and you'll get another bite at the apple. You have many years on the court. By this time next year, Grace out of DC will probably be looking for cert.
  #8542  
Old 05-21-2017, 7:54 AM
Southwest Chuck Southwest Chuck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 1,948
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phiremin View Post
I like your argument about mutual respect and their relationship, but I'd also argue that the door on that swings both ways.
Gorsuch: Master, we need to take this case. A fumdemental constitutional right is being denied.
Kennedy: I admire your enthusiasm young Jedi. But understand, I'm just not comfortable letting everyone carry a gun. Please respect that. I'm retiring soon and you'll get another bite at the apple. You have many years on the court. By this time next year, Grace out of DC will probably be looking for cert.
I seriously doubt that Kennedy would be that condescending towards Gorsuch. In fact, I think he would be more apt to show deference to Gorsuch's position. Again, this is no fantasy movie. It's real life, with real, lasting, consequences.
I guess we'll see if Gorsuch enters the fray with a bang or a whimper. I'm betting on the former, with Kennedy's support. We'll know more in or so .... maybe even by Monday !

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
I am humbled at the efforts of so many Patriots on this and other forums, CGN, CGF, SAF, NRA, CRPF, MDS etc. etc. I am lucky to be living in an era of a new awakening of the American Spirit; One that embraces it's Constitutional History, and it's Founding Fathers vision, especially in an age of such uncertainty that we are now in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by toby View Post
Go cheap you will always have cheap and if you sell, it will sell for even cheaper. Buy the best you can every time.
^^^ Wise Man. Take his advice
  #8543  
Old 05-21-2017, 8:11 AM
Peaceful John's Avatar
Peaceful John Peaceful John is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 308
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
What rarely is mentioned, is the personal and professional relationship Gorsuch has had with Kennedy over the years. THAT .... cannot be understated.
Thank you for a very thoughtful reply. I'd never considered their relationship in that way. And, by extension, if Gorsuch and Kennedy were adamantly opposed on Peruta, Kennedy could simply take an honorable retirement and let his former student take the field. Thanks for the response.
__________________
America -- once a country, now a game show.
  #8544  
Old 05-21-2017, 8:27 AM
Phiremin Phiremin is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 68
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
I seriously doubt that Kennedy would be that condescending towards Gorsuch. In fact, I think he would be more apt to show deference to Gorsuch's position.
I fully agree that he would not be condescending toward Gorsuch. I do think there is mutual respect there. I was being a little tongue-in-cheek with the Jedi reference.
However, I'm suggesting that it's just as likely Gorsuch is deferential to Kennedy's position as vice versa, but only because Kennedy is probably close to retirement.
"Neil, I'm close to retirement. Please don't put me in the position of having to force states to allow carry".
If they deny cert, it will be telling if Gorsuch signs onto the dissent. If it's Thomas/Alito (no Gorsuch) it would suggest to me Gorsuch doesn't want to "call out" Kennedy for his vote to deny. Or, God forbid, it could mean Gorsuch is another soft conservative like Roberts and Kennedy.
Now, if Kennedy is planning to retire over the summer, then maybe he is deferential toward Gorsuch, since he won't be there to sign onto an opinion.
  #8545  
Old 05-21-2017, 9:18 AM
Southwest Chuck Southwest Chuck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 1,948
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
And if the votes of the justices were somehow public, this would be an excellent point.

But they're not. The only way we'd know that Roberts was the turncoat is if Kennedy signed on to the dissent for denial of cert (or, of course, the Court granted cert, decided against us, and Roberts sided with the majority).
There is another way ......

Quote:
Ultimately, the problem here is that each justice's position has to be known in advance by all the others for a cert grant to be a rational thing given the nature of the case. As regards this, I haven't a clue whether Roberts' is known to the others or not, but mere belief about the positions won't be enough, given the gravity of the case. If there is uncertainty about being able to count to 5 (even in the face of the angle you raise), then cert will not be granted.
We'll just have to disagree here.

Quote:
Ultimately, the problem here is that each justice's position has to be known in advance
No it doesn't. NO ... IT .... DOESN'T Would it be nice? Yes. Would it be safer to know it? Absolutely.
To me, it's all dependent on a will to push the envelope. Taking risks (but not recklessly). As for what I bolded, "rational", is your "qualifier" for cert to be granted. It's true, but not evidence of outcome (or even probable outcome anymore, given some of the crazy "rational" decisions that have come out over the last few years). As you know, many horrendous court decisions are rational (or rationalized) to the ones who wrote them. It frequently means nothing anymore. What's rational to one, is totally irrational to another and is dependent on your definition of "is", lol. SCOTS Justices are not immune from their own prejudices (or Humanity, either).


If Kennedy, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito voted for cert, and it was granted, (over Roberts clear rejection) Roberts would immediately be horrified. He'd know he would have to choose. What odds would YOU give on his decision, given the above scenario?

Quote:
But in the absence of the above, you make an excellent point here, one that I'm actually forced to agree with, at least if Roberts actually cares about being known as the justice who choked the life out of the 2nd Amendment.

This is, ultimately, all about politics.
Oh, Roberts cares. It would be folly to believe otherwise. I guess my question is moot, lol, given your statement above, ^^^.



Quote:
I do: to raise the opportunity for replacement of one or more of the justices (Ginsburg, Kennedy) who have thus far shown themselves to be unwilling, save for when a homeless woman needs to use a stun gun, to support the 2nd Amendment.

If that weren't a very real possibility, I'd be right there with you. But at least one of those justices is due for imminent (as these things go, at any rate) replacement.
I concede that we do may have time to wait for another justice or two to be appointed. However, the precedents that may be set in the mean time, may be insurmountable by the time that happens. It's a roll of the dice, for sure, my friend. Any more "rational" judicial gymnastics like the 9th in Peruta, or in the Friedman case in the 7th (which should never have been allowed to stand), only serve to undermine our Republic even more(but thanks for the excellent dissent of denial of cert. Justice Thomas).





Quote:
I believe the timeframe for Article V falls outside of the timeframe for replacement of Ginsburg. That is really the only reason I'm not right there with you. It's pure game theory: you take actions with a timing and sequencing that is designed to maximize your chance of success. Going for broke at SCOTUS now doesn't do that.
The public interest in an Article V Convention ebbs and flows, dependent on the news of the day and the major issues involved. This process takes time to organize, educate the Public on, and complete. Add 3-5 years or more to settle the inevitable multiple ( State and Federal) lawsuits the Left WILLinitiate to stop it (once the final State calls for it ... 34th? ), and you can see it won't be an easy road to hoe. So your replacement time-frame is obviously valid. What kind of damage will occur in the meantime, though?


I
Quote:
n the face of a denial of cert of a previous case, I know of nothing that forbids challenge of a law later on, even if that law was previously challenged and said challenge failed. If that is not an option, then the calculus of all this changes quite a bit.
Nothing forbids it, but it is generally excepted folly (lol, looks like my new word of the day) if you have to overcome not only adverse Precedents, but Stare Decisis (sp) as well. Gura didn't fair to well with Slaughterhouse / Privileges or Immunity Clause argument, although he got Thomas on board
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
I am humbled at the efforts of so many Patriots on this and other forums, CGN, CGF, SAF, NRA, CRPF, MDS etc. etc. I am lucky to be living in an era of a new awakening of the American Spirit; One that embraces it's Constitutional History, and it's Founding Fathers vision, especially in an age of such uncertainty that we are now in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by toby View Post
Go cheap you will always have cheap and if you sell, it will sell for even cheaper. Buy the best you can every time.
^^^ Wise Man. Take his advice
  #8546  
Old 05-21-2017, 9:21 AM
Southwest Chuck Southwest Chuck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 1,948
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peaceful John View Post
Thank you for a very thoughtful reply. I'd never considered their relationship in that way. And, by extension, if Gorsuch and Kennedy were adamantly opposed on Peruta, Kennedy could simply take an honorable retirement and let his former student take the field. Thanks for the response.
You make a very good point!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
I am humbled at the efforts of so many Patriots on this and other forums, CGN, CGF, SAF, NRA, CRPF, MDS etc. etc. I am lucky to be living in an era of a new awakening of the American Spirit; One that embraces it's Constitutional History, and it's Founding Fathers vision, especially in an age of such uncertainty that we are now in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by toby View Post
Go cheap you will always have cheap and if you sell, it will sell for even cheaper. Buy the best you can every time.
^^^ Wise Man. Take his advice
  #8547  
Old 05-21-2017, 9:51 AM
Southwest Chuck Southwest Chuck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 1,948
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phiremin View Post
I fully agree that he would not be condescending toward Gorsuch. I do think there is mutual respect there. I was being a little tongue-in-cheek with the Jedi reference.
However, I'm suggesting that it's just as likely Gorsuch is deferential to Kennedy's position as vice versa, but only because Kennedy is probably close to retirement.
"Neil, I'm close to retirement. Please don't put me in the position of having to force states to allow carry".
If they deny cert, it will be telling if Gorsuch signs onto the dissent. If it's Thomas/Alito (no Gorsuch) it would suggest to me Gorsuch doesn't want to "call out" Kennedy for his vote to deny. Or, God forbid, it could mean Gorsuch is another soft conservative like Roberts and Kennedy.
Now, if Kennedy is planning to retire over the summer, then maybe he is deferential toward Gorsuch, since he won't be there to sign onto an opinion.


SUCH AN IMPORTANT CASE .... If our enumerated fundamental Rights are going to be dependent on, and/or held hostage to, a favor granted from one Justice to another, so they won't be put in an uncomfortable position, then the Snowflake Revolution and Transformation of our country is complete.

I guess I should start packing faster, KC ....
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
I am humbled at the efforts of so many Patriots on this and other forums, CGN, CGF, SAF, NRA, CRPF, MDS etc. etc. I am lucky to be living in an era of a new awakening of the American Spirit; One that embraces it's Constitutional History, and it's Founding Fathers vision, especially in an age of such uncertainty that we are now in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by toby View Post
Go cheap you will always have cheap and if you sell, it will sell for even cheaper. Buy the best you can every time.
^^^ Wise Man. Take his advice
  #8548  
Old 05-21-2017, 12:49 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,053
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
We'll just have to disagree here.
Perhaps, but before you disagree, allow me to explain why it's logical, at least as applied here.

Firstly, the Supreme Court is immensely reluctant to overturn its own precedent. We have Slaughterhouse as a prime example of that. Despite the Court's obvious recognition that Slaughterhouse is a bad decision (as shown by its willingness to use the kludge of "due process" to apply the Bill of Rights against the states), it is nevertheless unwilling to go against Slaughterhouse.

Secondly, Peruta isn't the end of the line of carry cases, and the justices know it.

So: game theory time, and remember that this is all from the perspective of a pro-2A Supreme Court justice. If all of the following is true:
  1. There are additional carry cases coming up (not the least of which is Peruta's followup case that challenges the entire prohibition scheme)
  2. You don't know the positions of everyone on the Court, so you can't reliably count to 5
  3. One or more of the justices is due for replacement by a 2A-friendly one who will shift the balance towards support of carry (i.e., towards your position)
  4. Roberts is the only holdout/wildcard on the 2A side (i.e., we assume here that Kennedy has been convinced by Gorsuch to grant cert and to support a strong pro-2A opinion)

then by taking the case:
  1. You leave winning to chance
  2. If you lose, you foreclose later wins
  3. If you lose, you may trigger an Article V Convention (see below)
  4. Even if you win, the nature of the win is likely to prove more hollow than you like due to the compromises you'd have to make in order to secure the win in the first place (see, e.g., Heller).

whereas by denying cert:
  1. You dramatically improve the odds of winning later (with a replacement of Ginsburg, you guarantee a win) with one of the cases that you know is coming
  2. You improve the odds (almost to the point of a guarantee) of the win being more substantial than it would be otherwise
  3. Historical precedent suggests that you won't trigger an Article V Convention, especially given the prior two points

Since the odds of an overall win are higher in the latter and you maximize the odds of avoiding an Article V Convention, denial of cert is the clear game theoretical winner.


Quote:
No it doesn't. NO ... IT .... DOESN'T Would it be nice? Yes. Would it be safer to know it? Absolutely.
To me, it's all dependent on a will to push the envelope. Taking risks (but not recklessly).
Precisely. It's a question of the risks. More precisely, it's a question of the risks versus rewards, compared with the alternatives. It appears to me, based on what I outlined above, that the risk versus reward situation favors denial of cert.


Quote:
As for what I bolded, "rational", is your "qualifier" for cert to be granted. It's true, but not evidence of outcome (or even probable outcome anymore, given some of the crazy "rational" decisions that have come out over the last few years).
By "rational", I really mean rational, i.e. the true meaning of the word ("based on or in accordance with reason or logic"), not the laughable construct that the anti-2A courts have turned the word into.


Quote:
As you know, many horrendous court decisions are rational (or rationalized) to the ones who wrote them.
Rational and rationalized aren't the same thing, of course, though they are in the minds of those idiotic courts.


Quote:
It frequently means nothing anymore. What's rational to one, is totally irrational to another and is dependent on your definition of "is", lol. SCOTS Justices are not immune from their own prejudices (or Humanity, either).
I agree, SCOTUS justices aren't immune to their prejudices (else both Heller and especially McDonald would have been a 9-0 decision and not a 5-4 one).

But that doesn't mean they can't count, or that they don't understand the situation.

Sure, it's possible that the pro-2A side will ignore the game theoretical situation and go for granting cert anyway. But that something is possible doesn't make it the way to bet.


Quote:
If Kennedy, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito voted for cert, and it was granted, (over Roberts clear rejection) Roberts would immediately be horrified. He'd know he would have to choose. What odds would YOU give on his decision, given the above scenario?
Better than 50%. But:
  • It wouldn't be a lot better than 50% (see, e.g., ObamaCare for what Roberts is willing to do)
  • Roberts would be able to use the threat of deciding against as the means of minimizing the benefit of the decision


Quote:
Oh, Roberts cares. It would be folly to believe otherwise. I guess my question is moot, lol, given your statement above, ^^^.
The question isn't whether Roberts cares, it's really a question of what he cares about more. Does he care more about the perception others have of him, or about the actual effects of his decisions? And keep in mind: it's not like the entire population would have it in for him if he were to side against carry. Many (e.g., the snowflakes and many in urban areas) would support him. And most certainly, much of the rest of the world would agree with such a decision. If he's looking to build a legacy that appeals to the world, and not just the country, he may well believe that the way to do that is to limit the 2nd Amendment as much as possible.


Quote:
I concede that we do may have time to wait for another justice or two to be appointed. However, the precedents that may be set in the mean time, may be insurmountable by the time that happens.
There is no such thing as an insurmountable precedent, most especially as regards the Supreme Court. A consistent message that I've been trying to telegraph is that nothing constrains the ability of judges to decide cases as they please. They suffer no ill effects from any decision they may wish to issue, save perhaps for those few situations where the law they're deciding on directly affects them.

It is vitally important to not confuse unwillingness with inability.


But since we're talking about the viewpoint of the pro-2A justices, the question has to be: are any of them comfortable with the notion of an Article V Convention happening? Are all of them? I'd wager not. Such a Convention under the circumstance where the Court has decided that the 2nd Amendment is nearly a dead letter is one that is likely to not be favorable to the Court as an institution. Importantly, that makes an Article V Convention something even the pro-2A justices will wish to avoid. That will affect the game theoretical balance.


Quote:
It's a roll of the dice, for sure, my friend. Any more "rational" judicial gymnastics like the 9th in Peruta, or in the Friedman case in the 7th (which should never have been allowed to stand), only serve to undermine our Republic even more(but thanks for the excellent dissent of denial of cert. Justice Thomas).
Oh, I completely agree. Nevertheless, the game theoretical situation is what it is, and argues in favor of waiting for a more favorable Court composition.


Quote:
The public interest in an Article V Convention ebbs and flows, dependent on the news of the day and the major issues involved. This process takes time to organize, educate the Public on, and complete. Add 3-5 years or more to settle the inevitable multiple ( State and Federal) lawsuits the Left WILLinitiate to stop it (once the final State calls for it ... 34th? ), and you can see it won't be an easy road to hoe. So your replacement time-frame is obviously valid. What kind of damage will occur in the meantime, though?
I think a more pertinent question is: what kind of irreversible damage will occur in the meantime?

I think the answer is "not much" (well, except for the lives needlessly lost because those who lost their lives were forbidden from mounting an effective defense. ). Laws are always subject to change because they are arbitrary constructs that come into existence, and cease to exist, at the stroke of a pen.

The damage that would be most difficult to reverse would come from the Supreme Court, because the Court has an institutional reluctance to reverse its own damage that exceeds that of any other government institution.


Quote:
Nothing forbids it, but it is generally excepted folly (lol, looks like my new word of the day) if you have to overcome not only adverse Precedents, but Stare Decisis (sp) as well. Gura didn't fair to well with Slaughterhouse / Privileges or Immunity Clause argument, although he got Thomas on board
Right. But remember: what we're deciding between here is having the Supreme Court overturn a lower court at a later time, versus (if SCOTUS grants cert to Peruta and, God forbid, decides against us) having the Supreme Court overturn its own precedent at a later time. As you point out, the Court is immensely reluctant to overturn its own precedent, no matter how bad it may be, so the former is clearly much easier to achieve than the latter, and the former is something that would be achievable through denials of cert until the Court's composition is solidly in favor of the full power of the 2nd Amendment.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

Last edited by kcbrown; 05-21-2017 at 3:00 PM..
  #8549  
Old 05-21-2017, 3:17 PM
RussG1's Avatar
RussG1 RussG1 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: San Jose Calif
Posts: 98
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

excellent logic...
  #8550  
Old 05-21-2017, 4:44 PM
butchy_boy's Avatar
butchy_boy butchy_boy is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Nashua, NH
Posts: 88
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This may be an unpopular opinion BUT

For the rest of the country, it may be better to have cert denied lest we lose completely at SCOTUS until at least we have a bonafide conservative majority.

Yes it will suck for you guys still, but there are many states on the line of pro gun/anti gun, and a loss at SCOTUS could harm many more states than just CA.
  #8551  
Old 05-21-2017, 6:33 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,825
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by butchy_boy View Post
This may be an unpopular opinion BUT

For the rest of the country, it may be better to have cert denied lest we lose completely at SCOTUS until at least we have a bonafide conservative majority.

Yes it will suck for you guys still, but there are many states on the line of pro gun/anti gun, and a loss at SCOTUS could harm many more states than just CA.
Heller via Scalia's written opinion made it clear:

1. Individual Right
2. Common Bearable Arms
3. Functional
4. Open Carry is the protected mode - bans cannot pass muster.
5. Prohibitons on CCW by states can be upheld. (State is controlling party)

How would loss for Peruta which would be an affirmation of Heller be a loss for States that:

- May Issue CCW
- Shall Issue CCW
- No Permit Req. (Vermont)

=8-)
  #8552  
Old 05-21-2017, 7:06 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,710
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Heller via Scalia's written opinion made it clear:

1. Individual Right
2. Common Bearable Arms
3. Functional
4. Open Carry is the protected mode - bans cannot pass muster.
5. Prohibitons on CCW by states can be upheld. (State is controlling party)

How would loss for Peruta which would be an affirmation of Heller be a loss for States that:

- May Issue CCW
- Shall Issue CCW
- No Permit Req. (Vermont)

=8-)
Because you're literally the only one arguing that SCOTUS cares about the law over outcome/personal feelings anymore.

If someone else does, please speak up. Even the lawyers who post here who never say they agree courts have shown themselves to act politically don't affirmatively say that they believe courts are acting impartially. So if I missed someone that does affirmatively believe courts are acting mostly if not wholly out of jurisprudence, then please correct me. Even Milan MULAY has started to waver on if courts will agree with him (which doesn't make him wrong about precedent, just about the honesty of courts).
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by lowimpactuser; 05-22-2017 at 7:27 PM..
  #8553  
Old 05-22-2017, 5:32 AM
Phiremin Phiremin is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 68
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Not on the list...again. What else is new.
The odds of a "grant" are now diminishing.
I put the new odds at:
Deny w/dissent - 60%
Remand - 25%
Grant-15%
  #8554  
Old 05-22-2017, 5:35 AM
selfshrevident's Avatar
selfshrevident selfshrevident is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 631
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Not in order list.
  #8555  
Old 05-22-2017, 5:40 AM
selfshrevident's Avatar
selfshrevident selfshrevident is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 631
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Someone's having a hard time being convinced. I mean come on, this issue is so ripe it's starting to rot.
  #8556  
Old 05-22-2017, 6:18 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,097
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The Binderup case was also not on the orders list.....
  #8557  
Old 05-22-2017, 7:04 AM
splithoof splithoof is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 827
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Looks like the next batch of orders will be released on 30 May.
Reading through SCOTUS blog (I'm a nobody), it seems like the case can be ordered as late as 27 June, and more likely to be argued next term (October at the earliest). If opinions are typically issued around June, that may give us another year to filter moon dust.
Those on here who better know the scheduling than I please make corrections.
  #8558  
Old 05-22-2017, 7:22 AM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 483
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

May 22 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 25, 2017.
  #8559  
Old 05-22-2017, 7:38 AM
splithoof splithoof is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 827
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
May 22 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 25, 2017.
Are we still good for possible news on the 30th, whatever that news may be?
Thanx
  #8560  
Old 05-22-2017, 8:06 AM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 483
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by splithoof View Post
Are we still good for possible news on the 30th, whatever that news may be?
Thanx
SCOTUSblog calendar shows Orders/Opinions on Tuesday, May 30, due to Monday being a holiday.

SCOTUSblog article re "relisting" shows 11.1% of cases granted cert after 4 relists:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/10/th...ber-term-2015/
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 3:10 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.