Tweet
I think if Benitez were to re-hear the case he would not give any stay, because it's very clear California has no hope of winning.
-
-
That is, uh, an argument I guess.
Completely wrong as written below by Justice Thomas himself, of course, but an argument nonetheless.
None of this matters, mind you, considering we already know that the 9th will drag this out as long as possible and send it back down for a new trial. I'm fine with this, though, because Benitez will go balls deep on the state this time around.Comment
-
Indeed, the district court’s “Heller test” analysis spanned just four pages of the
court’s 56-page order. See id. at 1020–23.
Gee, I can't image why the Heller test only spanned 4 pages. Maybe it's like an easy test or something, and there's no history.Comment
-
They admit that the date range does not include the 20th century. It's only prior to that per their own analysis.Though Bruen has clarified that 20th century historical evidence may not be considered if that evidence contradicts earlier evidence from around the time of ratification, id. at 2153 Case: 21-55608, 07/28/2022, ID: 12504686, DktEntry: 26, Page 12 of 189 n.28, the AWCA and earlier firing-capacity laws are consistent with, inter alia, a tradition of restricting dangerous and unusual weapons.
Reading their brief it feels like their falling down a mountain trying to grab at anything to stop them from falling to their deaths.Last edited by abinsinia; 07-28-2022, 7:23 PM.Comment
-
Hopefully this ruling comes soon enough for it to be considered in the Oregon initiative petition coming to a vote this fall. Now that the Oregon Sec. of State has certified the petition, it is going to the voters.
The proposed law is invalidated by the 2nd, Bruen, Caetano, and Heller, but it is not clear how to put a stop to it before voting.
[Omitting absurd text from Oregon Petition]
[Offensive stuff below is from parallel construction to proposed Oregon law]
What if the initiative petition proposed a law that invalidated the 13th, and defined things like "assault negro" and declared all blacks as inherently violent and needing to be banned? Would the organs of government permit it to be put to a vote?What about the 19th? Can the Commerce Clause be used to make it illegal for voting women to buy shoes from another state?Comment
-
Hopefully this ruling comes soon enough for it to be considered in the Oregon initiative petition coming to a vote this fall. Now that the Oregon Sec. of State has certified the petition, it is going to the voters.
The proposed law is invalidated by the 2nd, Bruen, Caetano, and Heller, but it is not clear how to put a stop to it before voting.
[Omitting absurd text from Oregon Petition]
[Offensive stuff below is from parallel construction to proposed Oregon law]
What if the initiative petition proposed a law that invalidated the 13th, and defined things like "assault negro" and declared all blacks as inherently violent and needing to be banned? Would the organs of government permit it to be put to a vote?What about the 19th? Can the Commerce Clause be used to make it illegal for voting women to buy shoes from another state?Comment
-
There is literally no excuse for not having already made a decision, 9th Circuit. Stop stalling.Comment
-
They know they can’t stop it, they can only delay the inevitable.Comment
-
They can hold it up for over ten years, then bring it back to SCOTUS with a new judge panel.Comment
There are currently 3799 users online. 166 members and 3633 guests.
Most users ever online was 65,177 at 7:20 PM on 09-21-2024.
Comment