Young v. Hawaii (CA9); Dismissed with predjudice 12-16-22

[marcusrn]

Hawaiians have been separated from their small legal guns for years and nobody cries for them. If they were to call them illegal alien guns we would have lots of positive press for the tiny precious guns.

[Rcjackrabbit]

Originally Posted by OldBoldPilot

Your condescension and disrespect in referring to them as "soldierettes" is a solid indication of your view of women in general.

I'll tell you what I have seen concerning women as warriors in 30 years of martial arts. I have a black belt in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and Shotokan karate.

Women are not equal to men as fighters. Period. End of story.

I have met 2 women that I lost to in 30 years. And, I am nothing special.

They are rare. Letting them into the military as fighters is a HUGE mistake. They just don't have what it takes.

[Kukuforguns]

Originally Posted by Rcjackrabbit

I'll tell you what I have seen concerning women as warriors in 30 years of martial arts. I have a black belt in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and Shotokan karate.

Women are not equal to men as fighters. Period. End of story.

I have met 2 women that I lost to in 30 years. And, I am nothing special.

They are rare. Letting them into the military as fighters is a HUGE mistake. They just don't have what it takes.

Please start your own thread

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[randomBytes]

Originally Posted by Metal God

I feel so sad . After Peruta and that fantastic 3 judge panel decision and what followed , I have zero confidence this will work out in are favor .

The opinion here is just as good as Peruta - same author, who I assume took delight in leveraging the Peruta en-banc result - which says no right to concealed - means you must have open carry.
I also loved the dissection and dismissal of the dissent (which reflects common anti arguments).

No doubt this will go en banc, and 9th will rule that there is no right to bear at all - which then becomes a slam dunk at SCOTUS, provided congress get's their job done and confirms Trumps nominee.

Of course we'll have to wait at least 2 weeks

[Offwidth]

Originally Posted by Rcjackrabbit

Women are not equal to men as fighters. Period. End of story.

My 14 years old daughter shoots better than most of men I know. And runs faster.

[CandG]

Originally Posted by Kukuforguns

Please start your own thread

Seriously, why are they still talking about this here? It was just a funny picture that was obviously only meant to lighten the mood in the thread, not turn it into lengthy (and VERY off-topic) debate.

Originally Posted by randomBytes

No doubt this will go en banc, and 9th will rule that there is no right to bear at all - which then becomes a slam dunk at SCOTUS, provided congress get's their job done and confirms Trumps nominee.

Of course we'll have to wait at least 2 weeks

Fortunately (sort of), this will take at least 3 years to reach SCOTUS, and by then I'm sure we'll have at least 1 or 2 new Justices in place.

The 3-judge panel decision in Peruta was issued on February 13, 2014.

The en banc panel did not make their decision until June 9, 2016.

And finally, SCOTUS cert wasn't denied until June 26, 2017.

It took 3 years, 4 months, and 13 days to get from where we are now in Young, to getting a SCOTUS decision to hear the case.

[Drivedabizness]

Originally Posted by speedrrracer

Agreed, except for the last line.

Under intermediate scrutiny, the state has to show that there is a reasonable fit between their law (OC only under our rules) and the compelling interest of the state (public safety, reducing gun violence, whatever).

So if the state had statistics which showed that before their law, OCers were accidentally shooting themselves in the foot 100 times a month (not a crime, but a public safety concern, which is also a legitimate state interest) and after their law, OCers were only shooting themselves in the foot 10 times a month, then the court would take those statistics under consideration.

Maybe the other side can explain those statistics in another light -- "it had nothing to do with the law, your honor, it was the introduction of anti-shoot-yourself-in-the-foot holsters which came onto the market, here we can see that in every case where an OCer shot themselves in the foot, they did NOT have the anti-foot-shoot holster..."

and back and forth it goes, but doesn't necessarily need to be related to crime. A small but important point -- public safety is the death of all civil rights when taken too far.

IANAL but I think its high time we started reminding the folks we sue that there is already a compelling State interest - to be the guarantor of our liberties. I'm sure there is a lot of stuff they could do in the name of safety but if all it does is impact otherwise law abiding people, it should always fail.

[press1280]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

I was watching the Chuck Michel NRATV spot, and he said in there that any three judge panel opinion in the 9th is binding to all other 3 judge panels. So that means that the Young opinion is effectively a win for Nichols and it should be immediate like 6 months.

Unless... Young goes En Banc, and the opinion is vacated.

The only way California can keep it's OC ban is for Young to go En Banc, and then it's reprieve will only last however long it takes for the SCOTUS to take it and rules on it.

California can ask for en banc when the Nichols panel hands him the victory, even if HI bows out. Nichols' 3 judge panel is bound by the ruling but en banc can effectively overturn it.
The 9th's glacial pace may wind up working against them too. With Peruta it took about a YEAR for them to announce they were going en banc. That means this opinion is persuasive authority and the Rogers case (NJ) will be petitioning SCOTUS this fall with a DEEPER split than before.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by ironpegasus

Except for last time they de-published the 3-judge Peruta opinion so worst case is really whatever the en banc pulls out of its orifice(s).

SCOTUS can still read, and use/incorporate the reasoning of Young in its review of Young or any other Carry case.

THOMAS, Chief Judge:
Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a) and Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion and order denying motions to intervene shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.

(emphasis and underlining in last sentence added)

[Paladin]

Hawaii News
‘Open carry’ rejected by Hawaii lawmakers


State lawmakers are warning that a federal appeals court decision striking down state restrictions on who can carry a firearm in public could make Hawaii a more dangerous place to live.

Senate Judiciary Committee Vice Chairman Karl Rhoads, who has introduced a number of bills in the House and Senate over the years to make Hawaii gun control laws more strict, said allowing people to openly carry loaded firearms in public is “a terrible idea.”

Hawaii has the fourth- lowest level of gun violence in the nation, and none of the three states with lower levels of gun violence than Hawaii has an “open carry” law, he said.

“It turns us into the Wild West — whoever shoots first is the one who wins,” said Rhoads (D, Downtown-* Nuu*anu-Liliha). “It just turns us into Dodge City and the quick or the dead, and that’s it.”

Rhoads said an open carry law will not make even those who carry guns safer.

He argued that “if you’re the good guy, you’re not going to pull it first and shoot somebody. It’s the bad guy who’s going to pull it first and shoot somebody. In all likelihood, if you’re carrying a gun and they can see it … they’re going to shoot the guy with the gun first because they’re more afraid of you.”

<snip>

Rhoads said that if Hawaii County appeals the decision to a larger panel of judges with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and if that decision is then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, it could take two years before the state is actually required to loosen its restrictions on carrying firearms in public.

U.S. Rep. Colleen Hana*busa said Hawaii County should immediately file a petition requesting a rehearing from 11 other 9th Circuit justices. She said Tuesday’s decision comes about two years after the entire 9th Circuit ruled that there is no right to carry concealed guns in public.

“This is not a second amendment issue. It’s a states’ rights issue. ...

Gov. David Ige said the state will urge Hawaii County to appeal, and will file a brief supporting that appeal.

<snip>

“Hawaii’s safety and peace cannot be jeopardized because of decisions made far away from our shores by those who have political agendas such as the president,” Ige said in his statement.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Brian Taniguchi said he believes state restrictions on open carry help reduce firearm violence.

“Generally, just from a common sense kind of standpoint, you would think that it would open up more potential for violence with open carry,” said Taniguchi (D, Makiki-Tantalus-*Manoa). “I think there is the question that with concealed weapons or open carry, that it raises the level or potential for violence.”

More at: http://www.staradvertiser.com/2018/0...a2c4cd5fbd99d9

IIRC, after Moore v. Madigan, Chicago & IL Dem politicos were similarly outraged and vowed to appeal it. But they ultimately caved in to anti Dems in CA, NYC, D.C. and nationally and did NOT appeal out of fear of forcing ALL states (HI, CA, MD, NJ, NY/NYC, MA, D.C., etc) to pass Shall Issue if they also lost at SCOTUS.

We should know before September 1st if there will be an appeal of Young by Hawaii County or by CA9 (sua sponte).

[SPGuy]

I always love how leftist states start screaming about States Rights when it comes to the 2A...don’t they understand it’s in the Constitution and that falls under federal? They want abortion and marriage to fall under federal and the Constitution to fall under the states decisions. Backwards dumb$***s.

Originally Posted by Paladin

More at: http://www.staradvertiser.com/2018/0...a2c4cd5fbd99d9

IIRC, after Moore v. Madigan, Chicago & IL Dem politicos were similarly outraged and vowed to appeal it. But they ultimately caved in to anti Dems in CA and NYC and nationally and did NOT appeal out of fear of forcing ALL states (HI, CA, MD, NJ, NY/NYC, MA, D.C., etc) to pass Shall Issue if they also lost at SCOTUS.

We should know before September 1st if there will be an appeal of Young by Hawaii County or by CA9 (sua sponte).

[edfardos]

I realize California has completed it's transition from a nation of laws to a nation of men, but this decision is at least a small throwback to Contitutional Republic.

The "limitations" bit in the decision will allow the legal industry to simply claim your constitutional rights do not apply within 1000 miles of a fire hydrant or something similar.

Charles Nichols has been waiting 2400 days for a decision/appeal. It will take the legal industry in Sacramento 30 days to create a new law. So we get 30 days of legitimate government every eight years. This isn't a rant or complaint. I'll take 30 days over nothing.

imho,
-craig

(I know I'm not allowed to like the Nichols case, so please just take the futility of the timeline from that).

[Garand Hunter]

Its not a popular perspective, BUT, California submitted its statehood TO THE US CONSTITUTION, with all of its amendments when it became a state, including the 2nd amendment. California needs to be reminded of this in the Supreme Court.

Psalm 1

[speedrrracer]

Originally Posted by Senate Judiciary Committee Vice Chairman Karl Rhoads

He argued that “if you’re the good guy, you’re not going to pull it first and shoot somebody. It’s the bad guy who’s going to pull it first and shoot somebody. In all likelihood, if you’re carrying a gun and they can see it … they’re going to shoot the guy with the gun first because they’re more afraid of you.”

Well, Karl, then you can thank the good guy with a gun yet again, for drawing fire away from others. Or you could pass a shall-issue CC law, and give your citizens a choice. Or you could try to appoint better judges to the 9th, then maybe they wouldn't have overturned Peruta, and you'd already have CC...

So many options to choose from

[CCWFacts]

Originally Posted by Paladin

IIRC, after Moore v. Madigan, Chicago & IL Dem politicos were similarly outraged and vowed to appeal it. But they ultimately caved in to anti Dems in CA and NYC and nationally and did NOT appeal out of fear of forcing ALL states (HI, CA, MD, NJ, NY/NYC, MA, D.C., etc) to pass Shall Issue if they also lost at SCOTUS.

I agree. The major Democratic states of the East Coast, mainly NYC, will have major concerns about going forward and will be putting pressure on Hawaii to accept reality. Hawaii is at the first stage of grief right now (denial and isolation) and needs to go through anger, bargaining, depression and get to acceptance.

Fact is, even if Hawaii legalizes open carry, very few people there would do it.

Originally Posted by Paladin

We should know before September 1st if there will be an appeal of Young by Hawaii County or by CA9 (sua sponte).

Cool! We will know soon. They also have 90 days to ask for cert, and it can be extended by 60 days. I assume that the cert clock runs in parallel with the en banc clock unless they ask for en banc, in which case the cert clock stops. (At least that's what would seem logical to me, IANAL.) I assume the mandate or any further activity at the district level won't happen until all these deadlines have come and gone, perhaps plus a few days? After the mandate issues, I assume everything can start moving here, with quick wins at the district level for us?

[baggss]

Originally Posted by Paladin

More at: http://www.staradvertiser.com/2018/0...a2c4cd5fbd99d9

The comments on that article are pretty entertaining. Clearly lots of Pro-2A folks in the islands...

[RickD427]

Originally Posted by Garand Hunter

Its not a popular perspective, BUT, California submitted its statehood TO THE US CONSTITUTION, with all of its amendments when it became a state, including the 2nd amendment. California needs to be reminded of this in the Supreme Court.

Psalm 1

It's probably not a popular perspective because it's a very incorrect perspective.

California became a state in 1850. It wasn't until the 14th Amendment in 1868 that there was a mechanism to make the states respect individual rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

The Second Amendment did not become binding on the states until the McDonald decision in 2010, about 160 years later than you seem to think it did.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

I was watching the Chuck Michel NRATV spot, and he said in there that any three judge panel opinion in the 9th is binding to all other 3 judge panels. So that means that the Young opinion is effectively a win for Nichols and it should be immediate like 6 months.

Unless... Young goes En Banc, and the opinion is vacated.

The only way California can keep it's OC ban is for Young to go En Banc, and then it's reprieve will only last however long it takes for the SCOTUS to take it and rules on it.

With all due respect to Mr. Michel, he is clearly wrong. Three judge panels are only bound by HIGHER authority, and another panel is not higher authority. An en banc opinion is binding on all panels if the decision provides general guidance to the other panels facing the same or similar issues.

To summarize the Young decision is(currently) binding on all trial (lower) courts in the Ninth Circuit and persuasive but not binding authority on all other 3-judge appellate panels anywhere. It may be relied upon by the Supreme Court as well, even if that latter court is clearly not bound bey the decision.

[sfpcservice]

And nothing has addressed PC 626.9 school zones so even an "open carry" win will still be severely limited until that goes to court.

[abinsinia]

If the 9th allows En Banc rehearing, then the oral arguments, and the final decision that comes down will be some pretty interesting mental gymnastics ..

I suspect it will be like the dissent in Young tho, something like it's the states right to do what it wants.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Originally Posted by TruOil

With all due respect to Mr. Michel, he is clearly wrong. Three judge panels are only bound by HIGHER authority, and another panel is not higher authority.

***

To summarize the Young decision is(currently) binding on all trial (lower) courts in the Ninth Circuit and persuasive but not binding authority on all other 3-judge appellate panels anywhere.

Sure about that? lol.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by sfpcservice

And nothing has addressed PC 626.9 school zones so even an "open carry" win will still be severely limited until that goes to court.

There are many things that will go to court. It's like building a house - you start with the foundation, then build the rest of it.

The main question here is whether the 9th will recognize the right to carry outside the home. Nothing else matters at this time.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

Sure about that? lol.

Of all the marginal stuff going on in this thread you pick the low hanging fruit. In fact, you pick the fruit hanging so low you can't even walk past the tree without running into it...

Let's hear some answers to hard questions, e.g., what the 9th will do now. I would be particularly interested in what you have to say on the issue of whether CA-9 can find a technicality to prevent this case from becoming a binding precedent, while at the same time not going en banc and having to answer the question of carry outside the home.

[tenemae]

Originally Posted by IVC

Let's hear some answers to hard questions, e.g., what the 9th will do now.

Yeah! Because screw verifiable claims. Let's speculate!!

Originally Posted by IVC

I would be particularly interested in what you have to say on the issue of whether CA-9 can find a technicality to prevent this case from becoming a binding precedent

*ahem*

Young does not address the additional limitation in section 134-9 providing that an open carry license may only be granted “[w]here the urgency or the need has been sufficiently indicated.” Nor could we evaluate such a requirement at the motion to dismiss stage, absent evidence showing the stringency of the requirement. Thus, we do not decide whether such requirement violates the Second Amendment.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by tenemae

Yeah! Because screw verifiable claims. Let's speculate!!

You've been around long enough and should know that "speculation" in context of FGG is anything but.

Originally Posted by tenemae

*ahem*

This opinion either stands or not. If it stands, it declares that the right to carry exists. If it doesn't stand, there must be a mechanism by which it was made "not to stand."

Parts that you're emphasizing are irrelevant unless you are implying they will be used to invalidate the ruling. What's your suggestion? En banc? What is the larger panel going to say? Those are the questions...

[tenemae]

Originally Posted by IVC

Parts that you're emphasizing are irrelevant unless you are implying they will be used to invalidate the ruling.

The ruling? You seem to be under the delusion that the ruling was that common, law-abiding citizens have an inalienable right to carry in public. There is currently no such thing in the eyes of CA9. The ruling was that the district's dismissal of the case is reversed and they must hear it to a conclusion. Now the specific reason I can't carry in LA county is because LA has an urgent need restriction that I can't meet. I.e, I'm not receiving death threats from an escaped convict who's stalking me. That being the major hurdle for me carrying in CA, the 3-judge panel was so kind to elaborate that

we do not decide whether such requirement violates the Second Amendment

Hawaii having a similarly vague requirement for urgent need, the district court can simply rule "Urgent need requirements do not violate the second amendment" and the chief of police can then simply say "sorry buddy, you don't meet the urgent need requirement. Call us when you get a stalker". A new case An appeal will then have to be filed which challenges the ruling allowing urgent need requirements for issuance of LTC, because the 3 judge panel hot-potatoed that issue back to the district court while explicitly stating they were refusing to address it.

So I don't know what you're talking about when you say "invalidate the ruling" because the core issue (at least from a LA/SF/major metro perspective) was never addressed.

[bigstick61]

Originally Posted by RickD427

It's probably not a popular perspective because it's a very incorrect perspective.

California became a state in 1850. It wasn't until the 14th Amendment in 1868 that there was a mechanism to make the states respect individual rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

The Second Amendment did not become binding on the states until the McDonald decision in 2010, about 160 years later than you seem to think it did.

The framers of the 14th Amendment didn't think it applied any of the Bill of Rights other than the 5th Amendment's due process clause to the States. That's something the courts came up with later. The legislative history just doesn't support that sort of thing. 14th Amendment is probably one of the most heavily abused parts of the Constitution, up there with the commerce clause. In this case, though, it's actually serving a benficial end, rather than being detrimental like such abuse usually is.

[ritter]

Originally Posted by tenemae

The ruling? You seem to be under the delusion that the ruling was that common, law-abiding citizens have an inalienable right to carry in public. There is currently no such thing in the eyes of CA9. The ruling was that the district's dismissal of the case is reversed and they must hear it to a conclusion. Now the specific reason I can't carry in LA county is because LA has an urgent need restriction that I can't meet. I.e, I'm not receiving death threats from an escaped convict who's stalking me. That being the major hurdle for me carrying in CA, the 3-judge panel was so kind to elaborate that
Hawaii having a similarly vague requirement for urgent need, the district court can simply rule "Urgent need requirements do not violate the second amendment" and the chief of police can then simply say "sorry buddy, you don't meet the urgent need requirement. Call us when you get a stalker". A new case An appeal will then have to be filed which challenges the ruling allowing urgent need requirements for issuance of LTC, because the 3 judge panel hot-potatoed that issue back to the district court while explicitly stating they were refusing to address it.

So I don't know what you're talking about when you say "invalidate the ruling" because the core issue (at least from a LA/SF/major metro perspective) was never addressed.

Or, looked at another way, the urgent need is consistent with the core of the Second, self-defense. So why rule that portion unconstitutional? Young seemed pretty clear that the right must be available to the average law abiding citizen, not just those with an urgent need (which some may issue areas will issue for) or that right is destroyed. A Hawaii fallback to only "urgent need" won't be upheld under Young, should it stand.

[speedrrracer]

Originally Posted by ritter

Or, looked at another way, the urgent need is consistent with the core of the Second, self-defense. So why rule that portion unconstitutional? Young seemed pretty clear that the right must be available to the average law abiding citizen, not just those with an urgent need (which some may issue areas will issue for) or that right is destroyed. A Hawaii fallback to only "urgent need" won't be upheld under Young, should it stand.

Even if you are right, and "urgent need" won't be upheld under Young, Hawaii can just call it a "basic public safety awareness test", and then the implementation of that test will, to the surprise of all, be impossible to pass, extremely costly, take years of training, and be subject to "unexpected administrative delays" thus requiring a future challenge in court, giving HI another decade or more of their anti-2A agenda, and that's their worst case -- assuming they lose the challenge.

[ritter]

Originally Posted by speedrrracer

Even if you are right, and "urgent need" won't be upheld under Young, Hawaii can just call it a "basic public safety awareness test", and then the implementation of that test will, to the surprise of all, be impossible to pass, extremely costly, take years of training, and be subject to "unexpected administrative delays" thus requiring a future challenge in court, giving HI another decade or more of their anti-2A agenda, and that's their worst case -- assuming they lose the challenge.

No claim to being right, just trying to look at what Young, Heller and Wrenn actually say (with the admitted filter of what I want them to say). And they all say carry (in some form) must be available to the average law abiding citizen (not subject to special needs, although licensing may apply--shall issue, essentially).

I don't believe Young is the end of restrictions for us in the 9th, but it's a mighty good sized step and will make the 9th en banc reversal difficult, at the least, should it be appealed to the panel. Heller provided a very good definition of "bear" (including "in the clothes or pocket") and spent pages on "keep" as well as "bear" being central to the right, definitively stating that both are protected. Wrenn quoted such verbatim. I wish Young had.

[speedrrracer]

Originally Posted by ritter

No claim to being right, just trying to look at what Young, Heller and Wrenn actually say (with the admitted filter of what I want them to say). And they all say carry (in some form) must be available to the average law abiding citizen (not subject to special needs, although licensing may apply--shall issue, essentially).

I don't believe Young is the end of restrictions for us in the 9th, but it's a mighty good sized step and will make the 9th en banc reversal difficult, at the least, should it be appealed to the panel. Heller provided a very good definition of "bear" (including "in the clothes or pocket") and spent pages on "keep" as well as "bear" being central to the right, definitively stating that both are protected. Wrenn quoted such verbatim. I wish Young had.

Sure, there is widespread agreement on how we think these decisions "should" be understood, but there is no guidance on the limits of things like good cause / sheriff's discretion / safety test requirements.

So those areas are where the darkness still lies, therefore, that's where the rats will scurry. Volokh even said as much

[ritter]

Originally Posted by speedrrracer

Sure, there is widespread agreement on how we think these decisions "should" be understood, but there is no guidance on the limits of things like good cause / sheriff's discretion / safety test requirements.

So those areas are where the darkness still lies, therefore, that's where the rats will scurry. Volokh even said as much

Agreed. At least we have "available to the average-law abiding citizen" which "may issue" to security guard, LEO and critical need clearly are not. Perhaps by the time I'm 90, this average citizen who lives in a may issue county will get the chance to exercise my right (but I'll be too old to see the front sight post by then)...

[tenemae]

Originally Posted by ritter

just trying to look at what Young, Heller and Wrenn actually say (with the admitted filter of what I want them to say).

Which is why we disagree. You're looking at the opinion through a pro-2A filter and interpreting it from an optimistic point of view. Anti 2A issuance agencies will not do the same. They will look at the opinion through a "how do we get around this" lens. Which is why I read it from an anti-2A perspective, trying to anticipate what "loopholes" they will find to still implement anti-2A policies. And not challenging urgent need is the biggest loophole (along with that little section which heavily implies carry insurance is constitutional- hello million dollar policies)

[ritter]

Can't argue with that.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by tenemae

The ruling was that the district's dismissal of the case is reversed and they must hear it to a conclusion.

So, your position is that there is no precedent being set and the only value of the opinion written by O'Scannlain is that the district court needs to "keep up the good work."

Phew, that's a relief for the HI AG and the anti gunners across the country. Why in the world would they consider appealing this to en banc panel or SCOTUS? I mean, it's going back to the district to get sorted out, so they can still win and we are screwed...

We will see soon enough whether you're correct. The clock is ticking...

[RickD427]

Originally Posted by IVC

So, your position is that there is no precedent being set and the only value of the opinion written by O'Scannlain is that the district court needs to "keep up the good work."

Phew, that's a relief for the HI AG and the anti gunners across the country. Why in the world would they consider appealing this to en banc panel or SCOTUS? I mean, it's going back to the district to get sorted out, so they can still win and we are screwed...

We will see soon enough whether you're correct. The clock is ticking...

The Ninth Circuit ruling will be precedent once final. The Ninth Circuit elected to publish the decision which will make it binding within the circuit.

The case was remanded back to the District Court, as is almost always done. When the Appellate Court finds fault with a lower court, it doesn't take over the case. It simply tells the lower judge that they screwed up and provides them with instructions (if the form of opinion) what must be done to handle the case correctly. It remains up to the District Court Judge to do it right on remand.

Judges were lawyers before they became judges, and lawyers are trained from the beginning to apply rules of judgment to issues and to apply judgmental standards other than their own. For the most part, they get the part about following the new rules so I wouldn't assume that we're screwed based on the fact the case was remanded.

A far greater risk is that the Ninth Circuit will opt to re-hear the case en banc. That's a bit of a crap shoot. The Ninth has a lot of Bush appointees on it and it's a gamble how an eleven judge panel would be composed. The real risk isn't how the panel would rule, it's the time delay that the hearing would add to the process. Either way, there is a great likelihood of the case going to the Supreme Court. By that time Justice Kavanaugh will hopefully be seated and there is probably a good chance that Justice Ginsburg's replacement will also be seated.

[njineermike]

Originally Posted by RickD427

The Ninth Circuit ruling will be precedent once final. The Ninth Circuit elected to publish the decision which will make it binding within the circuit.

The case was remanded back to the District Court, as is almost always done. When the Appellate Court finds fault with a lower court, it doesn't take over the case. It simply tells the lower judge that they screwed up and provides them with instructions (if the form of opinion) what must be done to handle the case correctly. It remains up to the District Court Judge to do it right on remand.

Judges were lawyers before they became judges, and lawyers are trained from the beginning to apply rules of judgment to issues and to apply judgmental standards other than their own. For the most part, they get the part about following the new rules so I wouldn't assume that we're screwed based on the fact the case was remanded.

A far greater risk is that the Ninth Circuit will opt to re-hear the case en banc. That's a bit of a crap shoot. The Ninth has a lot of Bush appointees on it and it's a gamble how an eleven judge panel would be composed. The real risk isn't how the panel would rule, it's the time delay that the hearing would add to the process. Either way, there is a great likelihood of the case going to the Supreme Court. By that time Justice Kavanaugh will hopefully be seated and there is probably a good chance that Justice Ginsburg's replacement will also be seated.

I that old bag is going to outlive my great grandkids.

[speedrrracer]

Originally Posted by RickD427

By that time Justice Kavanaugh will hopefully be seated and there is probably a good chance that Justice Ginsburg's replacement will also be seated.

There's a small problem -- she has to retire / die before they can nominate a replacement for her, let alone seat that replacement

[tenemae]

Originally Posted by IVC

So, your position is that there is no precedent being set and the only value of the opinion written by O'Scannlain is that the district court needs to "keep up the good work."

That's some Olympic level misconstruing there, and quite a fine straw man. You know my argument. You know it's valid. You're absurdly reframing it because you don't want to address it.

[Equitymind]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

Come on Fabio can we get a reveal on who you are as a reward for my recent win in Young?

Endorsed and encouraged!