Tea Leaf Reading on St. Benitez Timing????

[BearCreekRoad]

Originally Posted by SpudmanWP

Duncan History:
...Will get a Final Ruling at the trial level soon.

That ruling is not final, it can (and will) be appealed.

Originally Posted by dawgcasa

True, but he can write his opinion to be exceptionally water tight in following Bruen and in exposing the high burden on defendants to prove an unquestionable historical analogue, and a legal framework that is consistent with other constitutional rights. The 9th will still issue a stay and ultimately reverse because they are and ?outcome first? court, but it will make their contortions of logic and misrepresentations of history all the more obvious and insidious. I.e., a ?softball? for the Supreme Court to smack.

At the appeals court, on questions of law (which these case are about, as the facts are not in dispute), the case will be tried de novo. Meaning from scratch. Eat that point, Judge Benitez' decisions has about as much weight as the submissions from the parties, or from amicus curiae. Certainly, the various levels of appeals court can mine his opinion for arguments they want to use, but they can mine other places too.

And the question whether the Supreme Court will take an appeal is: Statistically speaking, they will not. They accept several percent of all cases, and in particular they look at a gun case roughly every decade or two. It is possible that this will change in the future, but not very likely. Right now, the court seems to be more interested in the Chevron question, which is of great societal impact.

[SpudmanWP]

Originally Posted by BearCreekRoad

That ruling is not final, it can (and will) be appealed.

I was obviously talking about being "final" from the District's perspective, as in "preliminary injunction" --> final ruling.

Originally Posted by BearCreekRoad

the case will be tried de novo. Meaning from scratch.

The 9th specifically remanded it to Benitez because it did not want to do it "de novo". As a general rule, appeals courts are not "courts of discovery" but "courts of review" and they don't like to retry cases unless they have to. The Judges' pushback during the oral arguments in Bianchi made this very clear.

If the 9th wanted Benitez to do the hard work of discovery but leave the ruling up to them, they could have done that as they did in (I'll have to find the ref).

[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by SpudmanWP

Duncan History:

1. Had a full trial, which it won
2. Had a 3-Judge panel appeal, which it won
3. Had an En Banc review, which it lost
4. Got GVRd by SCOTUS
5. Was reviewed & remanded by the 9th
6. Had ANOTHER trial
7. Will get a Final Ruling at the trial level soon.

Here is what Bianchi has had:

1. Never had a trial but was dismissed for "failure to state a claim"
2. 4th Circuit affirmed the dismissal on briefs alone, no oral arguments.
3. Got GVRd by SCOTUS
4. 4th Circuit held Oral Arguments (3-Judge panel) to either kick it back to the District for a full trial or decide the case based on the briefs and a single Oral Argument session.

Duncan has clearly been litigated to a much higher degree than Bianchi.

btw, the 4th held Oral Arguments on Dec 6th, 2022. I don't want to hear any more krap from anyone about Benitez taking 3+ months with his FOUR cases when the 4th has taken over SIX and a HALF MONTHS to rule on just ONE.

Those cases have been vacated and remanded. Any opinions issued are no longer valid.

And yes, I?m just as frustrated with the 4th circuit as I am with Benitez.

[SpudmanWP]

I never said that all of Duncan's history is part of the current case, I said that it was the most litigated.

Even including that, it has still had a full trial (with discovery) and will about to get a judgment.

Bianchi has neever had a trial, not had discovery, and has only had a single oral argument.

[darkwater34]

With the democrats trying to pass legislation for judical ethics. And the recent crap that their trying to pull on the Honorable Judge Benitez probably will not be a favorable ruling. We don't need laws holding S.C. JUDGES to some kind of ethics standards when there are already methods in place to remove judges from the bench. There is the impeachment prossess. If the democrats get this law passed and also are able to add more judges to the S.C. this government will no longer be for the people by the people. Judges will be afraid to decide cases brought before them in fear of being brought up on some b.s. ethnics charge. More ways to disrupt the judicial prossess. The democrats are not one bit concerned about ethnics just trying to pack the S.C. with nore liberal judges and a means to either tie the hands or get rid of conserative ones.

[Sgt Raven]

Originally Posted by BearCreekRoad

Can one predict the 3-judge panel? I don't think so; I think for each appeals case, a panel is drawn nearly at random.

I think who is on the Motions Panel at any time is known. I think it's the Merits Panel that is randomly drawn.

[tenemae]

Today would be a great day to protect the freedoms our countrymen have fallen to defend.

[AlmostHeaven]

Originally Posted by tenemae

Today would be a great day to protect the freedoms our countrymen have fallen to defend.

It would be great, but Federal courts aren't open today, so I very much don't expect anything to be released. I have my fingers crossed for Friday though.

[homelessdude]

Tomorrow would also be a great day.

[darkwater34]

Yes freedom fighters day.

[natman]

Originally Posted by BearCreekRoad

And the question whether the Supreme Court will take an appeal is: Statistically speaking, they will not. They accept several percent of all cases, and in particular they look at a gun case roughly every decade or two. It is possible that this will change in the future, but not very likely. Right now, the court seems to be more interested in the Chevron question, which is of great societal impact.

In Duncan v Bonta (mag capacity) and Bianchi v Frosh (AW ban) and Young v Hawaii (subjective CCW rules) SCOTUS has already granted cert (the G in GVR). Once the inferior courts have been given a chance to re-evaluate the cases using the criteria given in Bruen, it is likely that SCOTUS will accept an appeal if they feel that the inferior courts haven't followed Bruen correctly.

[SpudmanWP]

If one of those does go bad for us in the appeal, I am hoping when SCOTUS takes the case that they clarify & plug the holes that states and courts have been using to push gun control post-Bruen.