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

[ritter]

Thanks, mrrabbit and Kuku.

[Kukuforguns]

Thanks for this. I'm (obviously) not an attorney and sometimes wonder when I read something like Heller, that seems so clear, that others reach the exact opposite conclusion.

Here're the quotes from the Thomas, Gorsuch descent on the petition for writ in Peruta. My point was that the SCOTUS has indicated a desire to hear a carry case post Heller/McDonald.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...6-894_p86b.pdf

[emphasis added]

No. The Court has not expressed a desire to hear a carry case. J. Thomas and J. Gorsuch have expressed a desire. They are not the Court and were not speaking for the Court.

Several times each year the Court has a session where the justices consider numerous petitions. Each judge votes on whether to grant cert. Most petitions are denied with virtually no consideration. In order for the Court to grant cert, 4 of the 9 judges have to vote to hear it.

There has been rampant speculation that Justice Kennedy did not want to hear a public carriage case and therefore refused to vote in favor of granting cert. The remaining conservative justices (Scalia {now dead}, Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas) did not create a 4-vote bloc to grant cert because they were not sure how J. Kennedy would vote. This is all speculation. The unknown vote could just as easily be J. Roberts. We don't know.

This is why the upcoming term is so exciting. This will be the first session since J. Kennedy's retirement. If the Court does grant cert to a carry case, it will strongly indicate that J. Kennedy was the holdup.

[surfgeorge]

If you watched the video, it seems like they're clueless re. the case and the process. None seemed like Bloomberg/Soros puppets, at least not in what was said.

I wasn't able to read anything in their counsel's/attorney's face other than he was in over his head (speaking of which, he needs a haircut!), esp when discussing what could happen after en banc.

I didn't get the impression they were not going to go en banc.

I think it's "en banc here we come. We're praying Trump will be out-of-office by the time of taking it to SCOTUS." If that's true, this one may be -- the first case ever? -- to go "full court" en banc in CA9. The antis on CA9 may do that to delay it, to give them time to replace Trump.

But Pence and his SCOTUS picks won't be any better.

Maybe they're really counting on stopping the Kavanaugh nomination, and forcing Trump to replace him with another "maverick" (aka RINO) ala Kennedy???

Both the cover letter to the council from the Office of the Corporation Counsel (the county lawyers) and the resolution itself are clear that the intent is to both 1. file for en banc, and 2. then likely the losing party (for certain if it's the state/county) there will file for cert at SCOTUS. Not sure why they would make these claims while asking the county to basically turn over all the legal work to the state, unless the county lawyers had already been told by the new state hires that that is the strategy. I guess we'll find out in the coming years.

[surfgeorge]

I hope you are completely accurate in what you said here. IF you are, I'm laughing my butt off.

That was a typo on my part... should have read "at no cost to the county". Obviously it's going to cost the state a LOT, unless the five lawyers hired from D.C. are giving a cut-rate deal to the state out of the goodness of their hearts.

[ritter]

No question about it. I was referring to ritter's mention of the Peruta dissent on denial of cert because you had already made the (more salient, obviously) Norman point.

Working on extremely limited legal knowledge here... Sorry to misstep. I guess I need to read up on Norman.

[ritter]

Oh, I agree that Heller establishes that the 2nd Amendment protects carry, both concealed and open (since that is precisely how it defines "bear" -- one cannot legitimately claim, in the face of the fact that "bear" is defined to include both open and concealed carry, that the 2nd Amendment protects "bear" whilst simultaneously failing to protect concealed carry). And one cannot honestly read Heller with a straight face unless one also recognizes that the 2nd Amendment's protection extends beyond the home.

But courts specialize in intellectual dishonesty. If they didn't, then Heller would have been a much more straightforward decision, and the right to keep and bear arms wouldn't be the ghost of a right that it is today.

Thanks for this. I'm (obviously) not an attorney and sometimes wonder when I read something like Heller, that seems so clear, that others reach the exact opposite conclusion.

Here're the quotes from the Thomas, Gorsuch descent on the petition for writ in Peruta. My point was that the SCOTUS has indicated a desire to hear a carry case post Heller/McDonald.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-894_p86b.pdf

[Paladin]

If you watched the video, it seems like they're clueless re. the case and the process. None seemed like Bloomberg/Soros puppets, at least not in what was said.

I wasn't able to read anything in their counsel's/attorney's face other than he was in over his head (speaking of which, he needs a haircut!), esp when discussing what could happen after en banc.

I didn't get the impression they were not going to go en banc.

I think it's "en banc here we come. We're praying Trump will be out-of-office by the time of taking it to SCOTUS." If that's true, this one may be -- the first case ever? -- to go "full court" en banc in CA9. The antis on CA9 may do that to delay it, to give them time to replace Trump.

But Pence and his SCOTUS picks won't be any better.

Maybe they're really counting on stopping the Kavanaugh nomination, and forcing Trump to replace him with another "maverick" (aka RINO) ala Kennedy???

[rplaw]

Hawaii County Council update:

They passed the bill unanimously, 8-0 (one absent).

They asked a few non-substantive questions of attorney Horowitz, who "argued" before the O'Scannlain panel for the county. They mostly wanted to be sure the county wasn't going to be on the hook for any money to hire the "special counsel". Not one single word about why the county and the county employees sued ought to be let of the hook.

video: http://hawaiicounty.granicus.com/Vie....php?view_id=1
(beneath "Archived Videos", click "Hawaii County Council". Today's meeting is at the top of the list, Sept. 5.)

The county streaming feed is really really slow, so it might take a while to get to the "discussion" which is at 2h 28m 50sec

My comment is at 1:06:34.

A couple of other people did comment after I left, but none of them seemed to understand what this resolution was for (entering into an agreement to have special counsel hired by the state represent all the county parties at no cost to the state). More about "don't waste money" (but the county council has no input on the state spending money).

Speaking of which, I have both calls and emails into the governor's office and the AG's office asking for details about the costs involved. Haven't heard back yet.

I hope you are completely accurate in what you said here. IF you are, I'm laughing my butt off.

[surfgeorge]

Hawaii County Council update:

They passed the bill unanimously, 8-0 (one absent).

They asked a few non-substantive questions of attorney Horowitz, who "argued" before the O'Scannlain panel for the county. They mostly wanted to be sure the county wasn't going to be on the hook for any money to hire the "special counsel". Not one single word about why the county and the county employees sued ought to be let of the hook.

video: http://hawaiicounty.granicus.com/Vie....php?view_id=1
(beneath "Archived Videos", click "Hawaii County Council". Today's meeting is at the top of the list, Sept. 5.)

The county streaming feed is really really slow, so it might take a while to get to the "discussion" which is at 2h 28m 50sec

My comment is at 1:06:34.

A couple of other people did comment after I left, but none of them seemed to understand what this resolution was for (entering into an agreement to have special counsel hired by the state represent all the county parties at no cost to the state). More about "don't waste money" (but the county council has no input on the state spending money).

Speaking of which, I have both calls and emails into the governor's office and the AG's office asking for details about the costs involved. Haven't heard back yet.

[speedrrracer]

What people like mrrabbit are doing is the equivalent of saying "you meant X" to someone who is utterly unwilling to confirm it even when given direct opportunity to do so, even though they've demonstrated plenty of willingness to confirm other things. Under those circumstances, why in the world would one believe that X is really what was meant? Only because that's what one wants to believe, obviously.

No question about it. I was referring to ritter's mention of the Peruta dissent on denial of cert because you had already made the (more salient, obviously) Norman point.

[kcbrown]

KCbrown,
Not saying Heller specified open carry, just carry as equal to bear at the core of the 2nd. The descent I'm referring to is Thomas in the Peruta case, not the state descent. He says US Supreme Court needs to weigh in on that right to further define it, but Heller established it. I'd link but on the phone.

Oh, I agree that Heller establishes that the 2nd Amendment protects carry, both concealed and open (since that is precisely how it defines "bear" -- one cannot legitimately claim, in the face of the fact that "bear" is defined to include both open and concealed carry, that the 2nd Amendment protects "bear" whilst simultaneously failing to protect concealed carry). And one cannot honestly read Heller with a straight face unless one also recognizes that the 2nd Amendment's protection extends beyond the home.

But courts specialize in intellectual dishonesty. If they didn't, then Heller would have been a much more straightforward decision, and the right to keep and bear arms wouldn't be the ghost of a right that it is today.

[ritter]

KCbrown,
Not saying Heller specified open carry, just carry as equal to bear at the core of the 2nd. The descent I'm referring to is Thomas in the Peruta case, not the state descent. He says US Supreme Court needs to weigh in on that right to further define it, but Heller established it. I'd link but on the phone.

[kcbrown]

And lets be clear, a dissent on a lack of grant for cert is NOT a vote for OC (or whatever issue), although we are all absolutely relying on it meaning exactly that

Well, in this case we're talking about the implications of the absence of such a dissent.

Thomas and Scalia both made it clear that they are willing to use dissent to denial of cert for the purpose of not merely outlining why the Court should consider the case, but of outlining the legal errors that they perceived on the part of the lower court(s) and even going so far as to outline something of a legal position. And they made it clear that they were willing to do so particularly after they started to recognize the Court as a whole as backing away from the 2nd Amendment.

Given that, the absence of a dissent from denial of cert on a case which is relatively unique (as Norman was) and in which the claim is that the foundational decision on which the case is based outright says something so clearly that the majority who signed onto it must have agreed with it, speaks volumes as to the validity of that claim, most especially since this came in well after Thomas made plain his willingness to pen such dissents.

Put another way, the utter silence of those who signed onto the foundational decision in the face of a case which argues directly for that which is claimed is "clear" puts the final nail in the coffin of that case's argument. If Heller says that which is claimed by open carry proponents, it is clear that even those who signed onto the majority decision do not believe it.

What people like mrrabbit are doing is the equivalent of saying "you meant X" to someone who is utterly unwilling to confirm it even when given direct opportunity to do so, even though they've demonstrated plenty of willingness to confirm other things. Under those circumstances, why in the world would one believe that X is really what was meant? Only because that's what one wants to believe, obviously.

which speaks only to how precarious our position is -- we aren't just reading the tea leaves, we are investing our life savings under the assumption that the tea leaves correctly predict the future

I don't know that this is the case anymore. Certainly that was the case at one time, but now? I don't believe so. It looks to me like most of us are finally wising up to what's going on. We have Kavanaugh who is likely to be nominated to the bench as a replacement to Kennedy, and even now the expectations I've seen expressed here look to be muted in comparison to what they most certainly would have been under the same circumstances only a scant few years ago.

[speedrrracer]

And lets be clear, a dissent on a lack of grant for cert is NOT a vote for OC (or whatever issue), although we are all absolutely relying on it meaning exactly that

which speaks only to how precarious our position is -- we aren't just reading the tea leaves, we are investing our life savings under the assumption that the tea leaves correctly predict the future

[kcbrown]

How about the Peruta discent?

Not arguing, just seeking understanding.

I don't follow how it's relevant to the claim that Heller clearly says that open carry specifically is protected by the 2nd Amendment.

The Peruta en banc decision says only that concealed carry is not protected by the 2nd Amendment. Now, one would logically conclude that open carry must therefore be protected. But logic is one of those things that manages to escape the courts whenever they disagree with its conclusions. As such, to logically conclude that open carry must be protected by the 2nd Amendment under these circumstances is very different from managing to convince a court that it is, since the court (particularly one such as the 9th Circuit) is interested only in what it wants and not what logic demands.

In any case, Heller itself does not say anything about the lawfulness (or lack thereof) of prohibitions on open carry, or even on concealed carry. Cases it cites do, but those cases were cited for a different purpose than for showing how carry is protected.

If the open carry argument truly carried weight, then members of the Supreme Court had ample opportunity to prove it, even by way of dissent. They remained utterly silent. And we know that Thomas, for one, is not hesitant to pen a dissent when he believes the majority to be incorrect. He also seems to be more of an originalist than pretty much anyone else. His silence under the circumstances of Norman is damning.