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

[lowimpactuser]

47 hours to go....

But paladin! Sammiches and naps!

Or YOU could take a whack at guessing the outcome...

[Southwest Chuck]

But paladin! Sammiches and naps!

Or YOU could take a whack at guessing the outcome...

I predict .................


.
.
.

.
.
.

... that Paladin will know the outcome exactly 47 hours after his last post above. . Thus he will have no reason to pre - predict his prediction which he hasn't yet predicted.

.
.
.

But ..... my prediction of Paladin's pre-prediction could be wrong of course. Only after the outcome of his prediction is known will we know for sure.

[Paladin]

But paladin! Sammiches and naps!

Or YOU could take a whack at guessing the outcome...

[lowimpactuser]

And that's why we can't trust Paladin or any of his ilk in Alameda county with a permit to carry. Look what he wants to do with a hatchet! And you think he can be trusted with a gun?

I just say if you're going to be impatient... pass the time like every other self-respecting spectator, and SPECULATE

Go on, take a SHOT at it :P

Take a crack at it?

Hit me with your prediction.

I'm curious how many emojis you have at your disposal.

[Paladin]

24 hours to go....

[rlc2]

something to chew on (besides my nails), while waiting...

Another court-watcher's speculation on reasons for more cert relisting at Scotus:

https://richardresjudicata.wordpress.com/2014/05/19/is-the-cert-process-fully-adversarial/

and an interesting article linked within it:

http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/35_3_933_Tang.pdf

and a commenter'sresponse to the author Richard Re, in first link-

that is comforting, to me, anyway in re: Clements petition for cert on Jackson.

(and that applies to the A-team on Peruta/Richards, for if/when SCOTUS will decide on a cert petition later).

"I will acknowledge one exception, but it has nothing to do with counsel’s motivation. I do think that the Court itself seeks cases in which the presentation on both sides will be strong. Therefore, when the brief in opposition is really good — regardless of authorship — but the issue is certworthy, the Court (somewhat perversely) may take the case with the good BIO rather than a different case presenting the same issue with a weak BIO."

This is in line with another experienced appellate attorney's observation, over at mdshooters.com back in December:

http://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.php?p=3557420&postcount=41

"AS usual, Paul Clement writes a dynamite cert petition. I am not particularly optimistic about the case, but Clement is certainly correct in his analysis. It just may not strike the Court as important enough of a case to grant plenary review. A summary, per curiam. reversal is possible, though unlikely. Those get directed to the 9th Circuit on a fairly regular basis. See, e.g., Ryan v. Schad 133 S.Ct. 2548 U.S.,2013. I would be happy with that. "

[rlc2]

this book is going to come in very handy for future debates here

Reason Editor Damon Root is author of Overruled: The Long War for Control of the U.S. Supreme Court which

"...The Washington Post called "the most thorough account of the libertarian-conservative debate over judicial review" and Senator Rand Paul hailed as a "must-read."

$15 on kindle at Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Root, Damon (2014-11-04). Overruled: The Long War for Control of the U.S. Supreme Court (p. 8). St. Martin's Press. Kindle Edition.

[thorium]

Even though statistically, and objectively speaking, it's the least likely outcome...

I'm really "feeling" a somewhat narrowly crafted per curiam reversal could be in the works... Perhaps something like "heller said pistol ready to use in home is protected. Only (strict)?! scrutiny can apply to the bearing of a pistol in the home, and for most/many classes of people, like those without children or with older children, the storage requirement cant pass intermediate let alone strict scrutiny."

Maybe Just fishful thinking!

[Paladin]

It appears no action on the gun case.
by Amy Howe 6:32 AM

[Paladin]

Will Jackson v. San Francisco be relisted?
by California Right To Carry 6:35 AM
Comment (1)

Amy Howe

We won't know for sure until the electronic docket is updated, but presumably.

6:35 AM

[rlc2]

not able to log in here, via google link...

It appears no action on the gun case.
by Amy Howe 6:32 AM

thanks, saw that. Any luck logging in to the live portion?

[Paladin]

thanks, saw that. Any luck logging in to the live portion?

I've just been watching at:

http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_orders_and_opinions__May_18_2015

Outta here until next weekend! Have a great one, folks.

[rlc2]

ok, live blogging is working but full-log on is not- not a biggee

Raladin, roger. For anyone not following along- Scotusblog is live blogging the 0930 EST results of last weeks conference. You can go here:

or just wait for Paladin or someone to provide final update- looks like the official word will come out at 10 am EST = 7 PST.

example of questions being asked of Amy Howe, who is live blogging the conference verbal portion.

"Will Jackson v. San Francisco be relisted?
by California Right To Carry 6:35 AM
Comment (1)

Amy Howe

We won't know for sure until the electronic docket is updated, but presumably.

6:35 AM"

[rlc2]

heh, great minds think alike...

Paladin, we are cross-posting same things...
I defer to you sir, and will watch instead.

[rlc2]

For fellow legal noobs, this book is hugely helpful...

Because the Fourteenth Amendment is the primary legal battlefield upon which judicial restraint and judicial action have come to blows, this book begins with a brief history of that amendment, followed by a close look at the 1873 case in which the Supreme Court first grappled with its meaning and set the terms for the debate we’re still having today. From there I turn to the great courtroom duels over economic regulation that marked the Progressive and New Deal eras, including the cases that inspired Franklin Roosevelt’s ill-fated attempt to pack the Supreme Court. I then discuss the sweeping liberal triumphs of the mid-twentieth century, such as Brown v. Board of Education, and consider their relationship (if any) to the tenets of judicial deference.

Root, Damon (2014-11-04). Overruled: The Long War for Control of the U.S. Supreme Court (p. 8). St. Martin's Press. Kindle Edition.

I'm halfway thru- if you want some very useful background and context for 2A litigation today, $15 and a few hours of your time will put you on step to understand much of the legal debate, including Heller and why it is so important.

It will help defuse some of the time-wasting un-informed slams at NRA and SAF, and attorneys, that taint some of the gun blogs and forums, and get in the way of the big picture.

I'm at Chapter 6, "Guns, Lawyers, and Butchers"...
as you might guess, its not dry and boring, and will be especially useful to those here of the younger generation, the tech-smart, independently minded, libertarian, and new conservatives, to understand where the ideas you find interesting came from, just a few years back...

"It’s hard to imagine a greater victory for the conservative legal movement than District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 ruling in which the Supreme Court struck down Washington, D.C.’ s handgun ban. Not only did the Court, for the first time in its history, recognize the Second Amendment as securing an individual right to keep and bear arms, it did so in the language of “originalism”— the school of thought, increasingly popular among conservatives, that says the Constitution must be interpreted according to its original meaning at the time it was adopted.

Root, Damon (2014-11-04). Overruled: The Long War for Control of the U.S. Supreme Court (p. 169). St. Martin's Press. Kindle Edition. "