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

[Ceemack]

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

I seem to remember something about justice delayed being justice denied.

This case is?what, six years old? Still no resolution.

It?s as if the Bill of Rights no longer exists.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SpudmanWP]

We don't have a perfect system, but it is the best.

There is a process and the right pieces are in place to let it work the way it should, but it takes time.

[bwiese]

Prop 8 passed in California. Blaming Reps for the population being overwhelmingly liberal is an interesting approach.

Blaming Reeps for not being able to sell even dog food is the Reeps' fault.

I'm almost convinced Prop 8 was thrown up by the left to make CA GOP
look stupid.

[Bhobbs]

Blaming Reeps for not being able to sell even dog food is the Reeps' fault.

I'm almost convinced Prop 8 was thrown up by the left to make CA GOP
look stupid.

California is 2:1 democrats to republicans. You want the GOP to be DNC lite, as if that is an actual solution.

[chris]

Benitez is laying the groundwork for THT going forward. He has DOJ's extensive list of allegedly pertinent historical case law and statute and since he has a number of cases what he issues will set the tone for years to come.

Everything has to be bomb-proof and internally consistent or it will be attacked as error.

exactly. I can wait.

[IronsightsRifleman]

I seem to remember something about justice delayed being justice denied.

This case is?what, six years old? Still no resolution.

It?s as if the Bill of Rights no longer exists.

Blame the DoJ and blame the 9th Circuit.

Benitez's decision needs to be thorough and well-argued, and he knows it. Otherwise the State and the 9th will poke holes through it and tie thing up years longer.

I agree that abusive delays are infuriating, but now is not the moment to be hasty.

Patience.

[Ceemack]

I also blame the Ninth, I blame SCOTUS for GVRing these cases instead of deciding them outright, and yeah, I blame Benitez for taking so long.

This has taken too long.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sputnik]

Benitez is laying the groundwork for THT going forward. He has DOJ's extensive list of allegedly pertinent historical case law and statute and since he has a number of cases what he issues will set the tone for years to come.

Everything has to be bomb-proof and internally consistent or it will be attacked as error.

Would you say his opinion was consistent and squared away the first time around? Of course the en banc court had the 2A two step to fall back on and that should be dead now but I can?t get past the idea that the 9th will find a way to discard Benitez?s new ruling and substitute their own (assuming it gets to en banc).

[Dvrjon]

Would you say his opinion was consistent and squared away the first time around? Of course the en banc court had the 2A two step to fall back on and that should be dead now but I can?t get past the idea that the 9th will find a way to discard Benitez?s new ruling and substitute their own (assuming it gets to en banc).

One. more. time. The rules have changed.

Previous reviews allowed interest balancing and reliance on precedents based on interest balancing. All of that is gone.

This time they have to construct ?history balancing?.

[glbtrottr]

One. more. time. The rules have changed.

Previous reviews allowed interest balancing and reliance on precedents based on interest balancing. All of that is gone.

This time they have to construct ?history balancing?.

And the contortions performed by bureaucrats, cretins, embezzlers and scumbags we call government employees are a genuine item of revulsion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sputnik]

One. more. time. The rules have changed.

Previous reviews allowed interest balancing and reliance on precedents based on interest balancing. All of that is gone.

This time they have to construct ?history balancing?.

I don?t disagree that the rules have changed. I believe I said as much.
What I?m thinking is that if the 9th is as intent on ruling against the 2A now as they have been in the past they may get ? creative.
What I?m hoping is we get a favorable panel, win the appeal and the court refuses to go en banc.

[Drivedabizness]

I don't have much, if any, faith in the 9CA and barely more than that in SCOTUS.

But I think Judge Benitez has been pretty clear so far. I have to hope we'll have his decisions as soon as he can get them done.

[dawgcasa]

One. more. time. The rules have changed.

Previous reviews allowed interest balancing and reliance on precedents based on interest balancing. All of that is gone.

This time they have to construct ?history balancing?.

Yes, but then again the 9th circuit, and other like-minded liberal controlled circuits, spent the fourteen years prior to Bruen promoting, embracing, and promulgating Breyer’s DISSENT in Heller as if it were the majority ruling, despite Scalia specifically refuting it as wrong headed. They manufactured the two-step interest balancing none the less. So while I agree the rules have changed with Bruen, the 9th has shown themselves as particularly obdurate and willing to manufacture whole landscapes of legal frameworks to justify their desired outcomes, even in direct conflict with Supreme Court precedent.

This is why I’m hoping Benitez takes his time and really builds the fence around the proper use of the Bruen guidance on text, history, and tradition in anticipation of the 9th’s gyrations. This should include refuting the State’s attempts to back door “interest balancing” back in to a zombie framework through the distorted mis-application of THT. Not that this would stop the 9th from doing so, but it would at least require that they make their distortions of the Bruen framework so obvious that the dissonance to legal norms is a softball for the Supreme Court to crush on appeal.

[michigander]

Yes, but then again the 9th circuit, and other like-minded liberal controlled circuits, spent the fourteen years prior to Bruen promoting, embracing, and promulgating Breyer?s DISSENT in Heller as if it were the majority ruling, despite Scalia specifically refuting it as wrong headed. They manufactured the two-step interest balancing none the less. So while I agree the rules have changed with Bruen, the 9th has shown themselves as particularly obdurate and willing to manufacture whole landscapes of legal frameworks to justify their desired outcomes, even in direct conflict with Supreme Court precedent.

This is why I?m hoping Benitez takes his time and really builds the fence around the proper use of the Bruen guidance on text, history, and tradition in anticipation of the 9th?s gyrations. This should include refuting the State?s attempts to back door ?interest balancing? back in to a zombie framework through the distorted mis-application of THT. Not that this would stop the 9th from doing so, but it would at least require that they make their distortions of the Bruen framework so obvious that the dissonance to legal norms is a softball for the Supreme Court to crush on appeal.

You raise some important points. There?s been a lot of progress made, but there are also several cases that have had terribly misapplied Bruen and I can guarantee the 9th is going to follow their tortured logic. I hope Benitez is paying attention to those rulings and kills their arguments so the 9th can?t go there.

[SpudmanWP]

I don?t disagree that the rules have changed. I believe I said as much.
What I?m thinking is that if the 9th is as intent on ruling against the 2A now as they have been in the past they may get ? creative.
What I?m hoping is we get a favorable panel, win the appeal and the court refuses to go en banc.

Trump added several justices to the 9th so it's a "little" better than it was when he took office.