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

[IVC]

Orals are recorded. There is most likely a transcript of the oral arguments that can be referred to.

Sure. What I meant was that the orals are more of a formality where judges clarify any issues they might personally have. Most of the case is decided based on references and legal arguments in briefs.

[IVC]

That logic only works if you believe that the government gives us our Rights.
If you believe that Rights are inherent in being a Human and totally unrelated to government, than it is easy to understand that they have been abridged regardless of what the courts say.

Regardless of how/when/where/why we have rights, when there is a disagreement with respect to what a right really means, that disagreement must be resolved. Remember, one side says "our rights are infringed," but the other side says "no, your rights are fine." Someone has to determine who is correct.

Until that determination is made, you cannot claim that our rights are infringed because you are still in the process of *determining* whether you're right or wrong. If/when our side wins, of course we will say "our rights HAVE BEEN infringed all this time," but it's a moot point since the courts will reverse the law at that time anyways.

However, if we lose, then the other side says: "see, we told you so. You were fine all along."

[Paladin]

Q: Is our side putting all our eggs in the Pena basket, or are there other attacks (legal or political) on the roster that I don't know about?

[thorium]

Q: Is our side putting all our eggs in the Pena basket, or are there other attacks (legal or political) on the roster that I don't know about?

[stlegion4]

Q: Is our side putting all our eggs in the Pena basket, or are there other attacks (legal or political) on the roster that I don't know about?

There's NSSF V. State of California, but i think that one is just primarily going after Microstamping.

[AKSOG]

Hopefully this getting dragged out for what seems like forever shoots the liberals in the foot and we get a conservative replacement for Ginsberg in the meantime.

[cire raeb]

Prediction for 2018, Ginsberg meets her maker, Lucifer!

[Paladin]

Thanks for the replies, guys.

Yeah, I guess we're ----ed until Trump/Pence can replace Kennedy or 1 of the 4 antis with another Scalia clone.

FWIW I saw an article that suggested Roy Moore losing the race for senator from AL may ensure that Kennedy steps down at the end of this term. Why? Because it increases the odds that Dems could win the Senate in Nov and stop any Trump SCOTUS pick from Jan 2019 until he leaves office in Jan 2021. Kennedy would not want that to happen. He knows how SCOTUS needs a full complement of justices to function optimally and 2 years of only 8 justices would be a disaster.

[ladiver]

Thanks for the replies, guys.

FWIW I saw an article that suggested Roy Moore losing the race for senator from AL may ensure that Kennedy steps down at the end of this term. Why? Because it increases the odds that Dems could win the Senate in Nov and stop any Trump SCOTUS pick from Jan 2019 until he leaves office in Jan 2021. Kennedy would not want that to happen. He knows how SCOTUS needs a full complement of justices to function optimally and 2 years of only 8 justices would be a disaster.

Interesting spin. It is reasonable, but I would guess he would rather there be 8 than a conservative majority.

[Paladin]

Interesting spin. It is reasonable, but I would guess he would rather there be 8 than a conservative majority.

IIRC, the article said Kennedy cares more about the caliber of the nominees than their ideology.

The article noted that Gorsuch clerked under Kennedy and that two of the top picks on Trump's "short list" also clerked for Kennedy.

Since Kennedy sees that Trump's "taste" in judges is similar to his taste in law clerks, the "spin"/theory may have some validity: Kennedy may not be opposed to Trump choosing his replacement in 2018 versus who knows in 2020.

[abinsinia]

IIRC, the article said Kennedy cares more about the caliber of the nominees than their ideology.

The article noted that Gorsuch clerked under Kennedy and that two of the top picks on Trump's "short list" also clerked for Kennedy.

Since Kennedy sees that Trump's "taste" in judges is similar to his taste in law clerks, the "spin"/theory may have some validity: Kennedy may not be opposed to Trump choosing his replacement in 2018 versus who knows in 2020.

It seems like good etiquette for a judge to allow their party to replace them. It's possible Kennedy may never see another Republican president in his life time. Ginsberg made this mistake not retiring when Obama was in office. I would think Kennedy doesn't want to make a similar mistake.

[bhp1410]

Just donated $100 to CGF to help the fight over the roster.

[BAJ475]

It seems like good etiquette for a judge to allow their party to replace them. It's possible Kennedy may never see another Republican president in his life time. Ginsberg made this mistake not retiring when Obama was in office. I would think Kennedy doesn't want to make a similar mistake.

But Ginsberg did not believe that Trump would win, which is demonstrated by her statement that she would leave the US if he won. So now she has to try and hold on in the hope that a libtard can retake the WH in 2020.

While Kennedy may be a Republican, that does not mean that he is a Trump fan or supporter. So the question is how he views Gorsuch's appointment and what promises would be needed to get him to retire. I would think that a very short list of proposed nominees might help.

[oc16]

any updates with this or is it still stalling in court?

[Librarian]

Waiting for SCOTUS to consider the request. Follow along as SCOTUSblog - http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/01/pe...5/#more-265307

First conference was today.