Jackson v. SF (Ammo Ban; Locked Storage Reqts.): Cert DENIED 6/8/15

[thorium]

How about back on topic.

Per John Elwood, author of scotblogs "relist watch" --

"Many relists are denied, but relist increases statistical chances of grant considerably, from 2-4% to ~45%"

http://www.yalejreg.com/blog/what-the-supreme-courts-inaction-in-king-v-burwell-obamacare-reg-challenge-means-by-chris-walker

[lowimpactuser]

How about back on topic.

Per John Elwood, author of scotblogs "relist watch" --

"Many relists are denied, but relist increases statistical chances of grant considerably, from 2-4% to ~45%"

http://www.yalejreg.com/blog/what-th...y-chris-walker

Right, it makes complete sense. They think it's worth their time, but either feel they can't take it or decide to take it. Relist clarifies, e.g. this isn't a waste of time.

The question is, will they take it (grant cert, summary reversal) or reject? Do you have any opinion?

[thorium]

Opinions are dangerous! my opinion? the decisions of judges can't be "modeled" based on single factors because there are many more factors to each case. And there's not enough of a data sample (2A appellate case law) yet to feed a (data) model anyways...

My guessing?

I would doubt summary reversal with so little 2A opinions from the Supreme Court. Least likely outcome.

I would hope for grant but that is still < 50%, but as we see from (real) stats, 45% is as good a number as any.

If they end up denying, the most likely outcome, and we see all these relists, maybe Scalia needs time to write dissent to the cert denial.

[Paladin]

I thought the official SGT Friday "Only the Facts, Please Ma'am" thread was the sticky at top.

There is no "sticky at top" for Jackson. Maybe you're thinking of Peruta?

[wildhawker]

Right, it makes complete sense. They think it's worth their time, but either feel they can't take it or decide to take it. Relist clarifies, e.g. this isn't a waste of time.

The question is, will they take it (grant cert, summary reversal) or reject? Do you have any opinion?

They will either deny or grant.

[Window_Seat]

If they grant, could they do so just for purposes of a vertical bench-slap, although not per curiam, or maybe? I realize that could be a long shot though.

Erik.

[rlc2]

Sticky missing for Jackson....

There is no "sticky at top" for Jackson. Maybe you're thinking of Peruta?

Yes, I was referring to the structural organization of info, that I see enacted in Peruta, to good effect, that might be useful in Jackson.

I am rferring to the proposal floated awhile back, by Librarian I believe, to address members concerns about clarity and efficiency of updates. The consensus or at least default I see happening, is that high interest cases like Peruta, which inspire multiple new threads, could be managed best, with a sticky that is kept current by Librarian (deep bow of respect for hard work and wisdom managing the sandbox here), and some self-discipline by users in the other thread(s) to stay theoretically on topic, with side trips as interest allows.

I personally would like to see a sticky for each CA 2A case, in this CA 2A litigation forum, even if that is just a placeholder for the link to Michel Lawyers case documents, because that alone is a huge resource, as a place to return to find briefs, etc, that I otherwise would have to search around for, and link to, at places that might be slightly distracting and ot/biased, like Nichols.

That one case specific 'official' landing page becomes a big resource for new viewers, like those referred to calguns.net by readers like me, from other blogs, like TTAG where new to CA issues readers can benefit from the facts, and the learning curve and entertainment factor in related threads, like the non-official thread(s).

I defer to the mods, whomever they may be, and will follow any written rules, including the TOS that is very helpful to me, to remind me of my manners, and to the "how to use sticky" if I missed some detail, as other users (IVC) have graciously reminded me, from time to time.

[rlc2]

Thank you! Great find!

How about back on topic.

Per John Elwood, author of scotblogs "relist watch" --

"Many relists are denied, but relist increases statistical chances of grant considerably, from 2-4% to ~45%"

http://www.yalejreg.com/blog/what-th...y-chris-walker

Going to the authors page, here:

http://www.yalejreg.com/authors.html

We get another con law prof's appellate experience (clerk for Kennedy) AND 9th CA Judge level of insight (clerk for Kosinski).

That rises to the level of fact, to me, in re SCOTUS process and recent history as explained, somewhat tongue in cheek, by Elwood at SCOTUSBLOG and other gracious and wise experienced sources (see earlier links at posts 383, 391, 392).

I had not seen Prof Walkers informed speculation, but am gratified to note he ordered his guesses in much the same way as the laconic wildhawker does, and which other more voluble posters here have recently adopted, inspired to snark by the jolly Elwood, with sadly, much less actual experience, to fill in the odds explanations, and reduced to self-deprecating silliness.

So, thanks to low imp for stimulating the search for informed guesses by more of they who know what they are talking about. A much better read, for me, at least, than my earler dark imagings about demoncrats in black robes, etc, etc.

[rlc2]

oooh. good one!

If they grant, could they do so just for purposes of a vertical bench-slap, although not per curiam, or maybe? I realize that could be a long shot though.

Erik.

Thanks, Erik. I'd read elsewhere the 9th had a reputation for 'most reversed', in particular for one-liners (per curiam) for habeas cases...

(And noob that I am, I had to google what habeAss meant...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus

So your link puts that earlier comment, into context. Thank you.

[kcbrown]

How about back on topic.

Per John Elwood, author of scotblogs "relist watch" --

"Many relists are denied, but relist increases statistical chances of grant considerably, from 2-4% to ~45%"

http://www.yalejreg.com/blog/what-th...y-chris-walker

It would be interesting to see the data for the previous 2A cases with respect to relists. I know Drake was relisted a couple of times before being denied cert. I'm curious about the rest.

Having lots of relists, particularly in this case, is consistent with the notion that one of the Heller 5 has gotten cold feet, and the remaining ones are striving mightily to convince him to make it possible for them to count to 5.

If this were "in the bag", as it were, I see little reason to believe that it would be relisted rather than being granted cert immediately. And conversely, if the pro-RKBA faction knew they wouldn't be able to count to 5, there would be no need for them to relist (of course, the same dynamics apply to the other side -- if it knew it could count to 5, there'd be an immediate grant, and if it knew it couldn't, it would not bother with a relist).

It's even possible that both factions are talking to the guy with cold feet, attempting to sway him one way or the other.


In any case, this is not evidence that the hypothesis I'm going by is in fact correct (there are other potential explanations for the relists), but it is consistent with it.

I actually expect to see another relist here. I suspect the amount of interest in this case on the part of the pro-RKBA guys is higher than it was in Drake, precisely because it's nearly identical to the ground Heller has already covered. Such could not be said of Drake. The pro-RKBA guys know that if they do not take this case, the lower courts will rightly see that as a sign that the Court has effectively abandoned the 2nd Amendment, for if the Court is not even willing to reinforce its own original decision in a slightly different context, then how can it be willing to uphold the right in substantially different contexts?

[wildhawker]

If they grant, could they do so just for purposes of a vertical bench-slap, although not per curiam, or maybe? I realize that could be a long shot though.

Erik.

I really don't think that's very likely given that the case is more of a vehicle (helmed by Clement, a great lawyer and a Court favorite) for SCOTUS to clarify how lower courts should approach 2A/scrutiny than it is about a local ordinance that is arguably distinguishable from the D.C. laws in Heller (at least on its face, but not so much in practical ways).

[wildhawker]

Lots of re-lists is also consistent with the notion that they like and want the case. They might just be, you know, busy with other stuff and/or don't want the PR drama that goes with a gun case grant until later in the year. (Especially possible given upcoming decisions.)

-Brandon

It would be interesting to see the data for the previous 2A cases with respect to relists. I know Drake was relisted a couple of times before being denied cert. I'm curious about the rest.

Having lots of relists, particularly in this case, is consistent with the notion that one of the Heller 5 has gotten cold feet, and the remaining ones are striving mightily to convince him to make it possible for them to count to 5.

If this were "in the bag", as it were, I see little reason to believe that it would be relisted rather than being granted cert immediately. And conversely, if the pro-RKBA faction knew they wouldn't be able to count to 5, there would be no need for them to relist (of course, the same dynamics apply to the other side -- if it knew it could count to 5, there'd be an immediate grant, and if it knew it couldn't, it would not bother with a relist).

It's even possible that both factions are talking to the guy with cold feet, attempting to sway him one way or the other.


In any case, this is not evidence that the hypothesis I'm going by is in fact correct (there are other potential explanations for the relists), but it is consistent with it.

I actually expect to see another relist here. I suspect the amount of interest in this case on the part of the pro-RKBA guys is higher than it was in Drake, precisely because it's nearly identical to the ground Heller has already covered. Such could not be said of Drake. The pro-RKBA guys know that if they do not take this case, the lower courts will rightly see that as a sign that the Court has effectively abandoned the 2nd Amendment, for if the Court is not even willing to reinforce its own original decision in a slightly different context, then how can it be willing to uphold the right in substantially different contexts?

[lowimpactuser]

Lots of re-lists is also consistent with the notion that they like and want the case. They might just be, you know, busy with other stuff and/or don't want the PR drama that goes with a gun case grant until later in the year. (Especially possible given upcoming decisions.)

-Brandon

I'm so happy! This thread is positively bubbling with speculation! We have Kc, and BRANDON! And thorium!

And maybe if we can get a sticky, Paladin will be less grumpy about polluting the thread and put in his two cents!

[rlc2]

welcome back, kc, some grist for your mill...

It would be interesting to see the data for the previous 2A cases with respect to relists. I know Drake was relisted a couple of times before being denied cert. ((Snip))

Welcome back, KC! Finding out through SCOTUSBLOG articles and links, that there is a history of relists, and lots of discussion of what it means, by smart court-watchers elsewhere. So am hoping to see if there is enough data to plug into your model, adapted to this somewhat arcane area, that other SCOTUS watchers opine may be useful.

Here is a sample of a strategic discussion from ten years ago.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/27977185?uid=3739256&uid=2460338415&uid=2&uid=4&uid=83&uid=63&sid=21106713533133

I dont know where to find data to plug in since, (but Scotusblog looks like the place to start, given Elwoods links, etc)

And in any case, thank you again for the fascinating look into game theory, and for the link in past for statistics calculators online. Do you have any suggestions for a noob, as to the best single modern text on the version of game theory that you like? I'd like to follow along on future game theory threads, but I'll just get lost in the semantics arguments, without the basics, I fear.

If you find other updates to data, along the line of the jstor article, above, then I wonder about your thoughts on if perhaps this relist sub-test of SCOTUS thinking, might be the most current application of socio-political variables, in that most focused, most free from political influence/true to their oath characterization by long experienced appellate practioners assertions (esq@mds),

which *might* provide confirmation to your model, which could then be tested on lower court decisions, which of course are much more loaded with other regional and political variables than SCOTUS.

Its pretty clear you are on to something. IMHO, and it can only gain more value, from the rigor of current data, to explain "its political".

[RobertMW]

Thanks, Erik. I'd read elsewhere the 9th had a reputation for 'most reversed', in particular for one-liners (per curiam) for habeas cases...

(And noob that I am, I had to google what habeAss meant...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus

So your link puts that earlier comment, into context. Thank you.

The 9th is technically the "most reversed" when you look at total case volume. But remember, CA9 is HUGE, both in terms of judges sitting and the population that it represents. So, if you have the most cases coming from your court, you are likely to have the most reversals. If you break it down by ratio of cases taken and confirmed vs reversed, the numbers aren't so damning.

However, I do believe that due to the CA9's inherent liberal influence, as compared to most of the other courts, has resulted in some fairly strong reversals by the more moderate to conservative Supreme Court.