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
  #8481  
Old 05-20-2017, 5:04 PM
RussG1's Avatar
RussG1 RussG1 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: San Jose Calif
Posts: 181
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
  #8482  
Old 05-20-2017, 9:18 PM
Southwest Chuck Southwest Chuck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 1,942
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..
  #8483  
Old 05-20-2017, 10:29 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,097
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.
  #8484  
Old 05-21-2017, 4:16 AM
Phiremin Phiremin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 226
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.
  #8485  
Old 05-21-2017, 4:43 AM
Phiremin Phiremin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 226
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.
  #8486  
Old 05-21-2017, 7:54 AM
Southwest Chuck Southwest Chuck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 1,942
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
  #8487  
Old 05-21-2017, 8:11 AM
Peaceful John's Avatar
Peaceful John Peaceful John is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 312
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.
  #8488  
Old 05-21-2017, 8:27 AM
Phiremin Phiremin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 226
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.
  #8489  
Old 05-21-2017, 9:18 AM
Southwest Chuck Southwest Chuck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 1,942
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
  #8490  
Old 05-21-2017, 9:21 AM
Southwest Chuck Southwest Chuck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 1,942
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
  #8491  
Old 05-21-2017, 9:51 AM
Southwest Chuck Southwest Chuck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 1,942
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
  #8492  
Old 05-21-2017, 12:49 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,097
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..
  #8493  
Old 05-21-2017, 3:17 PM
RussG1's Avatar
RussG1 RussG1 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: San Jose Calif
Posts: 181
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

excellent logic...
  #8494  
Old 05-21-2017, 4:44 PM
butchy_boy's Avatar
butchy_boy butchy_boy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Nashua, NH
Posts: 104
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.
  #8495  
Old 05-21-2017, 7:06 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,069
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..
  #8496  
Old 05-22-2017, 5:32 AM
Phiremin Phiremin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 226
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%
  #8497  
Old 05-22-2017, 5:35 AM
selfshrevident's Avatar
selfshrevident selfshrevident is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 691
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Not in order list.
  #8498  
Old 05-22-2017, 5:40 AM
selfshrevident's Avatar
selfshrevident selfshrevident is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 691
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.
  #8499  
Old 05-22-2017, 6:18 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 3,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The Binderup case was also not on the orders list.....
  #8500  
Old 05-22-2017, 7:04 AM
splithoof splithoof is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 4,127
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.
  #8501  
Old 05-22-2017, 7:22 AM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 565
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

May 22 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 25, 2017.
  #8502  
Old 05-22-2017, 7:38 AM
splithoof splithoof is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 4,127
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
  #8503  
Old 05-22-2017, 8:06 AM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 565
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/
  #8504  
Old 05-22-2017, 8:23 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 16,466
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Only two more decades...
  #8505  
Old 05-22-2017, 8:29 AM
Hsu Hsu is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 235
iTrader: 46 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
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/
How did you get 11.1%? The last sentence "Another interesting trend has emerged this year: Nearly all (57) of the 61 relisted cases that were ultimately set for briefing and argument (93.4%) were granted after the first or second relist; just four of the 61 petitions (6.6%) were granted after the third or fourth relist"

I see 6.6%
  #8506  
Old 05-22-2017, 9:00 AM
Chatterbox Chatterbox is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,236
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hsu View Post
How did you get 11.1%? The last sentence "Another interesting trend has emerged this year: Nearly all (57) of the 61 relisted cases that were ultimately set for briefing and argument (93.4%) were granted after the first or second relist; just four of the 61 petitions (6.6%) were granted after the third or fourth relist"

I see 6.6%
Look at the chart at step 4. It's:
11.1% chance of granted ceritorari, with arguments
50% chance of granted ceritorari, with summary opinion issued
38.9% chance of denied ceritorari

So, actually at this point we have about 60% chance of case getting some sort of review from SCOTUS and 40% chance of being denied.
__________________
  #8507  
Old 05-22-2017, 9:02 AM
splithoof splithoof is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 4,127
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimi Jah View Post
Only two more decades...
My father, who passed last year at the age of 86, and who lived his entire life in the County of Los Angeles, never had even a slight chance of obtaining a CCW permit, despite a top-secret clearance from the Feds at one time, and all that jazz. Just like every other good citizen who has/did wait decades, he was denied the ability to legally carry by a system of blatant racism that should have been discarded before it ever became entrenched. The continued delays by the courts and legislature are truly disheartening, and at this point I can only hope that future actions in our favor will benefit my children.
  #8508  
Old 05-22-2017, 9:09 AM
Crazydave's Avatar
Crazydave Crazydave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 311
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
May 22 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 25, 2017.
Quote:
Originally Posted by splithoof View Post
Are we still good for possible news on the 30th, whatever that news may be?
Thanx
Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
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/
looks like it can get relisted 4 more times:

Remaining Conference Dates this session:
May 25
June 1
June 8
June 15
June 22
  #8509  
Old 05-22-2017, 9:34 AM
command_liner command_liner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Heart of the Valley, Oregon
Posts: 1,086
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Two small points, plus some encouragement.

It is good that we are all looking at this in a civil way. Please keep up the abstract civil discussion.

1) We all forget that the decision in Heller, the main decision, was 9:0. We forget this all the time because the media always quotes the other decision in Heller, the 4:5 part. Remember, and use, the 9:0 decision. Quote it as often as the other sides quotes the 5:4 aspect -- that is to say use the 9:0 decision exclusively and repeatedly. Using this bit of truth always enrages the antis. So do it as often as possible.

2) Use of statistical analysis here is, at best, not applicable. There is neither a Gaussian random chance in play, nor anything like it. Neither is there simple geometric division. So quoting statistical analysis as if there is any applicability is not just invalid, but somewhat fraudulent. Game theory is OK here, because there is a game being played with biased players and fluid rules. The math involved is something like a combination of fuzzy logic and discrete difference equations -- very messy. While I have been paying attention trillions of dollars have been lost due to misunderstanding these fine points.
  #8510  
Old 05-22-2017, 10:00 AM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,346
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by command_liner View Post
Two small points, plus some encouragement.

It is good that we are all looking at this in a civil way. Please keep up the abstract civil discussion.

1) We all forget that the decision in Heller, the main decision, was 9:0. We forget this all the time because the media always quotes the other decision in Heller, the 4:5 part. Remember, and use, the 9:0 decision. Quote it as often as the other sides quotes the 5:4 aspect -- that is to say use the 9:0 decision exclusively and repeatedly. Using this bit of truth always enrages the antis. So do it as often as possible.

2) Use of statistical analysis here is, at best, not applicable. There is neither a Gaussian random chance in play, nor anything like it. Neither is there simple geometric division. So quoting statistical analysis as if there is any applicability is not just invalid, but somewhat fraudulent. Game theory is OK here, because there is a game being played with biased players and fluid rules. The math involved is something like a combination of fuzzy logic and discrete difference equations -- very messy. While I have been paying attention trillions of dollars have been lost due to misunderstanding these fine points.
9:0? What are you talking about? It was 5:4. Breyer's dissent stated there was no individual right to own firearms and three other justices concurred.
  #8511  
Old 05-22-2017, 10:31 AM
Southwest Chuck Southwest Chuck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 1,942
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
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.




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.




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.




Rational and rationalized aren't the same thing, of course, though they are in the minds of those idiotic courts.




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.




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




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.




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.




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.




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.




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.
Very good analysis as always. I do have some issues on some of your points. One of your statements bothered me more than any other, though.
Quote:
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.
Where had I encountered that (that basic idea / rationale) before? I slept on it. That helped (always does, ) and the following came instantly to mind:



There is one main point that one must considered.... an analogy, if you will.

It comes from two men in American history (bear with me here as I am certainly not a Historian, but will do my best). Both were Generals. Both were named George. Both were brilliant tacticians. Both had an excellent grasp on the challenges and circumstances they faced. Yet Both handled these challenges in totally opposite ways. History remembers one as wildly successful, against seemingly insurmountable odds, and accomplished the impossible. The other went down in history as brilliant planner, but indecisive and inept.

Who are those two men in History? George McCellan and George Patton. Lincoln charged McCellan with building an Army and taking the fight to the Confederates during the Civil War; Patton, the task of Stopping a surprise German Attack that threatened to break the back of the Allied invasion. He had to turn and entire army (the 3th Armored) 90 degrees and march over 100 miles in less than 3 days to save a tiny town called Bastogne, which was surrounded by German Panzers during the Battle of the Bulge.

McCellan built his army; trained his men, acquired and amassed an enormous amount of equipment and materials, and developed a well thought-out strategic and tactical plan.
Patton on the other hand, confident and bold, drew on his prior experience and literally "WILLED" his army to move ... NOW !

History tells us that, McCellan sought perfection, that and that alone would guaranty success. Doubts constantly crept into his thoughts. He needed More men, more equipment, a Better Plan. Again, again, and again ..... delaying his military action. He was incapacitated by fear .... fear of failure. Enter U.S. Grant and the rest is history.

Patton knew that the Perfect was the enemy of the Good.
A GOOD PLAN, executed today, was better than a Perfect Plan executed tomorrow. So, he acted, and wrote himself into the history books.
Was McCellan wrong in his logic, reasoning, and strategic planning?
No. His plans were airtight, his logic and reasoning, unassailable. But he never acted, deferring to a time when things were perfect, to guaranty his success.

Now, I didn't intend for ^^^ that story to become so dramatic, .Now I'm not calling KC a McCellan, and I certainly am not likening myself to Patton, lol. I'm only pointing out the differences in strategy here and I think this analogy fits quite well. Patton drew on the intangibles and shear force of Will to get it done .... to help guide him to success. He had no choice. Lives were at stake.....And so they are here, my friend. True, we may not get everything we want, but those can be fleshed out better in future cases when the court is stronger, more conservative and liberty minded.

Anyway, it's nice to have presented an alternate yet plausible route that can be taken and I have, again, as always, enjoyed our interaction, KC.

That's all I got ....

SC
__________________
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; 05-22-2017 at 11:20 AM..
  #8512  
Old 05-22-2017, 11:18 AM
Southwest Chuck Southwest Chuck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 1,942
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hsu View Post
How did you get 11.1%? The last sentence "Another interesting trend has emerged this year: Nearly all (57) of the 61 relisted cases that were ultimately set for briefing and argument (93.4%) were granted after the first or second relist; just four of the 61 petitions (6.6%) were granted after the third or fourth relist"

I see 6.6%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chatterbox View Post
Look at the chart at step 4. It's:
11.1% chance of granted ceritorari, with arguments
50% chance of granted ceritorari, with summary opinion issued
38.9% chance of denied ceritorari

So, actually at this point we have about 60% chance of case getting some sort of review from SCOTUS and 40% chance of being denied.
I'll throw this in from a poster at MDShooter ....

Quote:
For mid may 2015 conference cases that were redistributed, there is exactly 50-50 chance the case was denied cert (with out without dissent, but usually with), 50-50 chance the case was "decided" (Per curiam, GVR, or scheduled for oral arguments and decided on merits). The only cases that were held over until next term were ones where the SCT requested a response from the Solicitor General. There are a few cases from 2015 and 2016 where they redistributed the case a few times, then asked for a response (all I checked were ultimately denied). FWIW, there are 10 more cases redistributed compared to the same conference last year, and 6 more cases redistributed than 2015.

I'd say at this point it's exactly a coin flip whether its a grant or denial.
I like those odds ....
__________________
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
  #8513  
Old 05-22-2017, 11:22 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,097
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
Very good analysis as always. I do have some issues on some of your points. One of your statements bothered me more than any other, though.

...

(McClellan vs Patton analogy, which is quite interesting by the way, removed for brevity's sake)
Hmm...well, there are a couple of fundamental problems with that analogy.

The first is that the game theory I mention isn't ours (though there are elements in it that may be applicable to ours), it's that of the pro-2A SCOTUS justices.

The second is that it presumes that granting cert to Peruta is likely to yield a decision that is "good enough", even after the compromises that would be necessary to get a positive decision at all.

What exactly is "good enough"? If we get a decision that says that "bear" is some sort of "right", but that it is subject to "reasonable regulation" without actually spelling anything out, then we're really no closer to regaining the right than we were prior to the decision. In real terms, it would have the equivalent effect of denying cert, but with one crucial difference: it would cement any negative attributes of the decision for all time.

So it really comes down to this: how likely are we to get a decision that is stronger and more supportive than that when getting a favorable decision at all turns on the whim of someone who doesn't want to expand the right beyond keep in the home?



Quote:
And so they are here, my friend. True, we may not get everything we want, but those can be fleshed out better in future cases when the court is stronger, more conservative and liberty minded.
That is true, but then that is true even with a denial of cert. And that's really the point. If the game theoretical situation is what I outlined, then granting cert to Peruta involves heightened risk without the corresponding reward. In essence, and this is the best case scenario, our choices are:
  1. Get a lukewarm positive decision now and deal with the damage it does, to whatever degree possible, after the Court composition changes
  2. Wait until the Court composition changes and get a damage-free decision out of the gate

Where's the advantage in the first case?


Quote:
Anyway, it's nice to have presented an alternate yet plausible route that can be taken and I have, again, as always, enjoyed our interaction, KC.
Likewise!
__________________
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.
  #8514  
Old 05-22-2017, 11:57 AM
Just Dave Just Dave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 7,259
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Clearly we need more conservatives on the bench.
  #8515  
Old 05-22-2017, 12:12 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 3,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Hmm...well, there are a couple of fundamental problems with that analogy.

The first is that the game theory I mention isn't ours (though there are elements in it that may be applicable to ours), it's that of the pro-2A SCOTUS justices.

The second is that it presumes that granting cert to Peruta is likely to yield a decision that is "good enough", even after the compromises that would be necessary to get a positive decision at all.

What exactly is "good enough"? If we get a decision that says that "bear" is some sort of "right", but that it is subject to "reasonable regulation" without actually spelling anything out, then we're really no closer to regaining the right than we were prior to the decision. In real terms, it would have the equivalent effect of denying cert, but with one crucial difference: it would cement any negative attributes of the decision for all time.

So it really comes down to this: how likely are we to get a decision that is stronger and more supportive than that when getting a favorable decision at all turns on the whim of someone who doesn't want to expand the right beyond keep in the home?





That is true, but then that is true even with a denial of cert. And that's really the point. If the game theoretical situation is what I outlined, then granting cert to Peruta involves heightened risk without the corresponding reward. In essence, and this is the best case scenario, our choices are:
  1. Get a lukewarm positive decision now and deal with the damage it does, to whatever degree possible, after the Court composition changes
  2. Wait until the Court composition changes and get a damage-free decision out of the gate

Where's the advantage in the first case?




Likewise!
Striking down a "need" clause from public carry is a huge step, even if the court doesn't clarify the right any more. This is effectively the only tool the antis have to limit public carry.
Yes, they may think of something else but it gets more and more desperate each time.
  #8516  
Old 05-22-2017, 12:26 PM
Phiremin Phiremin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 226
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Dave View Post
Clearly we need more conservatives on the bench.
Which makes me wonder if a remand is the best outcome.
Deny and it goes away. Grant and any right to carry gets watered down.
I would expect that the court concedes there is a right to carry, it probably strikes down "just cause" provisions, but Roberts and Kennedy will make sure any majority option provides states with plenty of leeway to trample the right. In CA, NJ, NY, HI etc, you will be permitted to carry a flintlock pistol on the first Tuesday of the month after 400 hours of training and posting a $1 million bond.
But if they remand, it goes back to the 9th Circuit for a year or 2 where they will engage in legal gymnastics to conclude there is no right to carry or there is a right to carry, but pretty much any restrictions are acceptable.
By the time it gets back up to SCOTUS again, perhaps we have a friendlier court.
  #8517  
Old 05-22-2017, 12:33 PM
tsnoforn tsnoforn is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 216
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I doubt this will make it out of the cert pool.

As someone mentioned before, justice Scalia has already written a landmark opinion upholding the 2nd amendment as valid for individuals and that placing limits/regulations on concealed carry is appropriate.

This case would not break any new ground.

I don't like that much, but it looks like a whole opinion and solid case law.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  #8518  
Old 05-22-2017, 1:04 PM
SimpleCountryActuary's Avatar
SimpleCountryActuary SimpleCountryActuary is offline
Not a miracle worker
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,953
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsnoforn View Post
I doubt this will make it out of the cert pool.

As someone mentioned before, justice Scalia has already written a landmark opinion upholding the 2nd amendment as valid for individuals and that placing limits/regulations on concealed carry is appropriate.

This case would not break any new ground.

I don't like that much, but it looks like a whole opinion and solid case law.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I disagree. Limits/regulations are not the same as prohibiting entirely. Here in Los Angeles I have a better chance of being abducted by aliens and being given a free sigmoidoscopy than get a carry permit.

And, no, I don't know if the aliens provide the Devil's Lube or not.
__________________
"The most hated initials in America today ... TSA."

Said by yours truly to an audience of nodding IRS employees.
  #8519  
Old 05-22-2017, 3:18 PM
butchy_boy's Avatar
butchy_boy butchy_boy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Nashua, NH
Posts: 104
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Wouldn't it make sense for antis to vote for cert so they could kill it? Assuming they think they have 5 votes?
  #8520  
Old 05-22-2017, 4:26 PM
bulgron bulgron is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Santa Clara County
Posts: 2,783
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by butchy_boy View Post
Wouldn't it make sense for antis to vote for cert so they could kill it? Assuming they think they have 5 votes?
I suspect the problem is, there's a couple of wobblers on the court and no one knows how they'll vote in terms of gun rights. So both the anti's and the pro's are wary of granting cert.

Either that, or there's some serious legal judgey constitutional stuff going on here and they really are waiting for "the right case."
__________________


Proud to belong to the NRA Members' Council of Santa Clara County

Disclaimer: All opinions are entirely my own.
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 7:18 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy