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

[Chewy65]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neal_Katyal

Obama solicitor general, has argued numerous SCOTUS cases, including Obamacare, general Dem crusader and clerked for Roberts before he became Chief Justice. Nothing good for our side, it would appear.

Are you saying that he clerked for Roberts on the Supreme Court. That article you cited says he clerked for Justic Breyer on the Court. As for Roberts, while in law school he clerked for Roberts before his nomination to the Court.

During law school Katyal clerked one summer at Hogan Lovells, where he worked for Roberts before Roberts's nomination to the US Supreme Court.

[Robotron2k84]

Both quotes you cite say the same thing. Katyal clerked for Roberts before his nomination to SCOTUS.

Roberts was nominated to replace O'Connor, but became Chief Justice in one pass on September 29, 2005 to replace Justice Rehnquist's seat after his passing, earlier the same month.

[Chewy65]

The first quote is what I was commented on. It says he clerked for Roberts before he became Chief Justice and that could easily be read as saying he clerked for Justice Roberts on the Court. The quote I added shows that he was a summer clerk for Roberts at Hogan Lovell. Do you really not know the difference between a summer law firm clerk and a law clerk for a Supreme Court Justice?

[Robotron2k84]

Your contention seems to be with the wiki article. I only condensed the two facts.

Roberts was never an Associate Justice, so how could it be construed Katyal clerked for Roberts on the Supreme Court?

ETA: my only reason for pointing out that Katyal had a working relationship with Roberts was to support the idea that this is an ill omen for our side. Roberts is the likely swing vote for a majority, and the two being associated is not that flattering.

Had I pointed out his SCOTUS clerking for Breyer it wouldn't impune Katyal any more as the lead council for an anti state clerking for an anti Justice.

[Chewy65]

An intersting tid bit from the same Wikipedia article on Kaytal; endorsement of Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

Katyal endorsed President Trump's nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court in an op-ed to The New York Times.[24] When that newspaper's public editor criticized the op-ed for failing to disclose Katyal had active cases being considered by the Court, Katyal responded that it would have been obvious he always has cases being heard by the Supreme Court.[25] Katyal formally introduced Judge Gorsuch at the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings.

[Robotron2k84]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/opinion/why-liberals-should-back-neil-gorsuch.html

Seems like nothing more than welcoming the new guy to the office, since they will see a lot of each other. The title of the Op-Ed: "Why Liberals should back Neil Gorsuch," does not inspire confidence that Katyal isn't going to go for the jugular if "Bear" makes it to SCOTUS via Young. The very first line of the article betrays his bias: "I am hard-pressed to think of one thing President Trump has done right in the last 11 days since his inauguration..."

[Chewy65]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/o...l-gorsuch.html

Seems like nothing more than welcoming the new guy to the office, since they will see a lot of each other. The title of the Op-Ed: "Why Liberals should back Neil Gorsuch," does not inspire confidence that Katyal isn't going to go for the jugular if "Bear" makes it to SCOTUS via Young. The very first line of the article betrays his bias: "I am hard-pressed to think of one thing President Trump has done right in the last 11 days since his inauguration..."

Anyone reading the short article you posted would realize that it was far from a welcoming the new guy to the office speech, since at the time Gorsuch had only been nominated. Indeed, while acknowledging the nominee's outstanding credentials, Katyal questioned whether Gorsuch should even receive a straight up or down confirmation vote because of the Republican's of a vote on Garland's nomination for the Court.

[wolfwood]

new article

https://thefederalist.com/2018/08/21/hawaiian-veterans-win-gun-rights-perfect-movie/

[Noble Cause]

new article

https://thefederalist.com/2018/08/21...perfect-movie/

From the article:

The vast Majority of Hollywood is Anti 2A, with the exception of a few like
film maker Clint Eastwood.

With that said, I would definitely see a movie based on the above,
directed by Eastwood....


Noble

[sfpcservice]

Or Kurt Russel

From the article:



The vast Majority of Hollywood is Anti 2A, with the exception of a few like
film maker Clint Eastwood.

With that said, I would definitely see a movie based on the above,
directed by Eastwood....


Noble

[kuug]

That Hawaiian legislative body was supposed to meet today to discuss the appeal of the Young decision, does anybody have any info on that?

[rplaw]

Reading tea leaves is not a scientific endeavor. However, should the motion be denied or en banc convened and uphold the panel's findings, it would solidify the opinion to where Nichols could proceed. It would then be up to the 9th, CA appeal, en banc cycle again to settle Nichols. If Nichols is upheld at the ninth, then CA would be compelled to find some avenue to permit open carry (loaded?).

That would have to go through the legislative process and may not adhere to any ruling in Nichols, where another round of lawsuits would ensue. It could take another 5-6 years post-Young, in the best case, to get California to comply.

As for SCOTUS, if any of these cases are appealed and granted cert., it could very well lead to shall-issue or permit-less open-carry based on their interpretation of how 2A and 10A interact. Or, they could simply uphold whatever finding the 9th produced.

The other unknown is how SCOTUS might grant a case cert. in order to overcome any circuit splits should CA9 reverse the panel's decision.

There are no certainties, it's all game theory at this point.

Addressing the bolded part, IF Ca were to allow UNloaded permitless carry, there becomes a HUGE problem for those with CCW's.

1. How do you publicly switch from loaded concealed to unloaded open without drawing the arm? Which instantly creates a criminal offense regardless of either statute or Constitutional Right. (You can't even do this when alone in a public bathroom since you're still "technically" in public.)

2. What would this mean for a "flash"? Half of one and half of another is neither and right now a "flash" is not a criminal offense. It might get your permit yanked if you do it too often, but it's not a crime. Yet.

IMO, given the current state of the gun laws in Ca, "Permitted Carry" is the only practical solution the State has. Such a permit would authorize both concealed and LOC. It would also have to do away with discretion and be shall issue to comport with the Constitutional mandate.

Otherwise, the current scheme will become white noise as no one complies and carries openly or concealed at a whim. (Not that people aren't already carrying concealed without permits anyway.)

Young and Nichols combined have Ca in a situation where the Dem anti-gun agenda is in real danger of falling apart completely. I'm not sure the State truly understands that yet.

[Paladin]

That Hawaiian legislative body was supposed to meet today to discuss the appeal of the Young decision, does anybody have any info on that?

It was the County of HI council meeting. The matter was taken off the agenda when the state of HI decided to intervene.

Next deadline to watch is Sept 14th, the last day for the county of HI to ask for en banc appeal.

[TruOil]

Addressing the bolded part, IF Ca were to allow UNloaded permitless carry, there becomes a HUGE problem for those with CCW's.

Young and Nichols combined have Ca in a situation where the Dem anti-gun agenda is in real danger of falling apart completely. I'm not sure the State truly understands that yet.

I disagree. If you currently have a CCW, you cannot draw your firearm anyway except if you are in fear of imminent bodily injury of death to yourself or others, and maybe to effectuate a citizen's arrest. So none of that would change if open unloaded were legalized. Further, until about 5 years ago, open unloaded was legal but no one took advantage of it (but when some people did, the effluent hit the impeller).

Personally, I would MUCH rather carry a concealed (loaded) firearm that an unloaded openly carried one. And even if it were to be relegalized, I doubt that I would take advantage of an open (unloaded) carry law.

[Paladin]

I've got a feeling Hawaii and antis around the national are busy trying to field a "Dream Team" of top NYC and/or Wash D.C. legal talent to fight this at CA9 and then at SCOTUS afterwards.

Assuming a 45 day extension is granted, I *think* we're looking at ~Jan to June 2020 for an en banc decision.

And then comes appeal to SCOTUS... So we're looking at June 2021 for a final decision!

So, for us in anti strongholds in CA, time for a big sandwich and long nap....

Here's the 2nd D.C. lawyer retained for HI's "Dream Team" (along with 2 HI AG lawyers): Colleen E. Roh Sinzdak of Hogan Lovells US LLP

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Young-v.-Hawaii_Notice-of-Appearance-for-Attorney-Colleen-Sinzdak-on-Behalf-of-State-of-Hawaii_140.pdf