Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Peņa v. Cid (Handgun Roster) **CERT DENIED 6-15-2020**

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • wireless
    Veteran Member
    • May 2010
    • 4346

    There is no deadline for the ruling, bummer. Every Friday when I see there is nothing I am disappointed because I know the ruling won't come out on weekend
    Last edited by wireless; 06-14-2014, 5:16 PM.

    Comment

    • Jeffersonian
      Junior Member
      • Aug 2012
      • 79

      She is looking for a reason to uphold the roster. It doesn't look good.

      Comment

      • advocatusdiaboli
        Calguns Addict
        • Sep 2009
        • 5521

        Originally posted by Jeffersonian
        She is looking for a reason to uphold the roster. It doesn't look good.
        I think you are right unfortunately.

        If the court were going to over turn the Roster, it would have been an easy an quick decision because it is clear an right and constitutional. Simple and not requiring a lot of 'dancing' and showmanship.

        But if one wants to pervert justice, well then that takes a lot more time to build the circular arguments and facade of logic supported by specious reasoning in order to give the appearance of a fair and just decision when in fact it is not.

        IF the Roster is upheld, then it will be two years to the 9th Circuit and two years more to SCOTUS (if they even take it). And RKBA will be dead in a decade in CA.
        Benefactor Life Member NRA, Life Member CRPA, CGN Contributor, US Army Veteran, Black Ribbon in Memoriam for the deceased 2nd Amendment
        sigpic

        Comment

        • bobbodaggit
          Member
          • Dec 2013
          • 287

          Considering Judge Mueller http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimberly_Mueller and Magistrate Judge Delaney

          were both appointed by our gun grabbing President, presumably they were vetted as part of preparation for the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. I would be surprised that an administration so anti-gun would appoint those who disagree - especially in a blue state with two Dem Senators and the House Minority leader where no political points would be needed. That said, hopefully both are open minded about the 2d Am post-Heller and are willing to take the bad press that would inevitable result from striking down the list.

          Comment

          • advocatusdiaboli
            Calguns Addict
            • Sep 2009
            • 5521

            Originally posted by bobbodaggit
            Considering Judge Mueller http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimberly_Mueller and Magistrate Judge Delaney

            were both appointed by our gun grabbing President, presumably they were vetted as part of preparation for the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. I would be surprised that an administration so anti-gun would appoint those who disagree - especially in a blue state with two Dem Senators and the House Minority leader where no political points would be needed. That said, hopefully both are open minded about the 2d Am post-Heller and are willing to take the bad press that would inevitable result from striking down the list.
            Benefactor Life Member NRA, Life Member CRPA, CGN Contributor, US Army Veteran, Black Ribbon in Memoriam for the deceased 2nd Amendment
            sigpic

            Comment

            • IVC
              I need a LIFE!!
              • Jul 2010
              • 17594

              Originally posted by advocatusdiaboli
              I wonder if there has ever been an analysis of judicial opinion and judgments on firearms control issues correlated with party of the appointers of the judges.
              This is the case where you have to very careful about the difference between correlation and causality.

              The true cause of differences is likely the view on Living Constitution vs. Originalism, from where other political views derive.
              sigpicNRA Benefactor Member

              Comment

              • kcbrown
                Calguns Addict
                • Apr 2009
                • 9097

                Originally posted by IVC
                This is the case where you have to very careful about the difference between correlation and causality.

                The true cause of differences is likely the view on Living Constitution vs. Originalism, from where other political views derive.
                No doubt. However, you may only be introducing a level of indirection.

                Do we know of any examples of Democrat-appointed judges that adhere to the originalist viewpoint?

                It's not like the "living Constitution" nonsense is a recent phenomenon, either. It goes back to FDR's appointees at the very least, and possibly further back than that.
                The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

                The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

                Comment

                • IVC
                  I need a LIFE!!
                  • Jul 2010
                  • 17594

                  Originally posted by kcbrown
                  Do we know of any examples of Democrat-appointed judges that adhere to the originalist viewpoint?
                  That's a question for the attorneys and others who make a living in the courtroom.

                  It's not always obvious how the lower court judges think since they most often apply the existing jurisprudence without injecting their interpretation of the Constitution.
                  sigpicNRA Benefactor Member

                  Comment

                  • kcbrown
                    Calguns Addict
                    • Apr 2009
                    • 9097

                    Originally posted by IVC
                    That's a question for the attorneys and others who make a living in the courtroom.

                    It's not always obvious how the lower court judges think since they most often apply the existing jurisprudence without injecting their interpretation of the Constitution.
                    Certainly. This is where new areas of jurisprudence are especially valuable. The way courts have been issuing decisions on 2nd Amendment issues is, I think, very valuable in illustrating what judges really think. That seems to show a strong correlation between party affiliation and willingness to uphold the right.

                    It'll take me a bit of time to compile the data, but I expect to be able to answer advocatusdiaboli's question in detail. The data with respect to 2nd Amendment cases is certainly there.
                    The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

                    The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

                    Comment

                    • Jeffersonian
                      Junior Member
                      • Aug 2012
                      • 79

                      Originally posted by advocatusdiaboli
                      I think you are right unfortunately.

                      If the court were going to over turn the Roster, it would have been an easy an quick decision because it is clear an right and constitutional. Simple and not requiring a lot of 'dancing' and showmanship.

                      But if one wants to pervert justice, well then that takes a lot more time to build the circular arguments and facade of logic supported by specious reasoning in order to give the appearance of a fair and just decision when in fact it is not.

                      IF the Roster is upheld, then it will be two years to the 9th Circuit and two years more to SCOTUS (if they even take it). And RKBA will be dead in a decade in CA.
                      She is looking for help in writing her opinion and making it stronger. Thats all this is.

                      However, Mueller is not particularly liberal and she comes from an old school midwest family. I can't recall her ever having a firearms case before.

                      Comment

                      • jwissick
                        Junior Member
                        • Aug 2002
                        • 56

                        It really bothers me that it takes so long, often more than a decade to get these things settled in the courts.

                        "Justice delayed is justice denied"

                        Comment

                        • riftol
                          Senior Member
                          • Apr 2014
                          • 518

                          Originally posted by kcbrown



                          It's not like the "living Constitution" nonsense is a recent phenomenon, either. It goes back to FDR's appointees at the very least, and possibly further back than that.


                          In the twentieth century, the concept of a "living Constitution" has led to signal enhancements of individual liberty, particularly liberties relating to family matters.




                          Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926)



                          Justice Sutherland:


                          While the meaning of constitutional guaranties never varies, the scope of their application must expand or contract to meet the new and different conditions which are constantly coming within the field of their operation. In a changing world, it is impossible that it should be otherwise. But although a degree of elasticity is thus imparted not to the meaning, but to the application of constitutional principles, statutes and ordinances which, after giving due weight to the new conditions, are found clearly not to conform to the Constitution of course must fall.




                          Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)



                          Justice Hugo Black:

                          The Constitution makers knew the need for change, and provided for it. Amendments suggested by the people's elected representatives can be submitted to the people or their selected agents for ratification. That method of change was good for our Fathers, and, being somewhat old-fashioned, I must add it is good enough for me.
                          Last edited by riftol; 06-25-2014, 5:02 PM.

                          Comment

                          • kcbrown
                            Calguns Addict
                            • Apr 2009
                            • 9097

                            I can't remember if I've made a prediction on the outcome of this case. It's now time for me to.

                            Remember that my predictive hypothesis is predicated upon the known political position of the judge(s) in question.

                            In this case, the question is what the political position of the judge, Kimberly Mueller, is. What we know is that she was appointed by Obama, and that even though she grew up in Kansas, she was politically active in the Democrat party here in California, serving as a legislative aide to Lloyd Connelly.

                            Hence, the immediate evidence suggests she's more "liberal" than "conservative" and, as such, is more likely than not to side against the 2nd Amendment.

                            Hence, my hypothesis forces me to predict a loss here.


                            While that is, of course, generally consistent with my other predictions, it's not because it's consistent with that theme that I make this one (or any of the others, for that matter). The hypothesis I'm operating under posits a predictive mechanism (that the political inclination of the judge will determine the judge's decision, most especially in the absence of strongly controlling jurisprudence), and it is falsifiable (a correctness rate equivalent to or worse than that of chance is cause to discard the hypothesis).
                            The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

                            The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

                            Comment

                            • Jeffersonian
                              Junior Member
                              • Aug 2012
                              • 79

                              Originally posted by kcbrown
                              I can't remember if I've made a prediction on the outcome of this case. It's now time for me to.

                              Remember that my predictive hypothesis is predicated upon the known political position of the judge(s) in question.

                              In this case, the question is what the political position of the judge, Kimberly Mueller, is. What we know is that she was appointed by Obama, and that even though she grew up in Kansas, she was politically active in the Democrat party here in California, serving as a legislative aide to Lloyd Connelly.

                              Hence, the immediate evidence suggests she's more "liberal" than "conservative" and, as such, is more likely than not to side against the 2nd Amendment.

                              Hence, my hypothesis forces me to predict a loss here.


                              While that is, of course, generally consistent with my other predictions, it's not because it's consistent with that theme that I make this one (or any of the others, for that matter). The hypothesis I'm operating under posits a predictive mechanism (that the political inclination of the judge will determine the judge's decision, most especially in the absence of strongly controlling jurisprudence), and it is falsifiable (a correctness rate equivalent to or worse than that of chance is cause to discard the hypothesis).
                              I think this will be a loss but she really isn't that liberal.

                              Comment

                              • kcbrown
                                Calguns Addict
                                • Apr 2009
                                • 9097

                                Originally posted by Jeffersonian
                                I think this will be a loss but she really isn't that liberal.
                                Evidence? All I have at the moment is some rather crude generalities. The more specific a picture that can be built, the better.
                                The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

                                The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                UA-8071174-1