A great man once said, "Don't tell me the odds."
You must unlearn, what you have learned. Prevail we must.
Great man, indeed.
A great man once said, "Don't tell me the odds."
You must unlearn, what you have learned. Prevail we must.
Either way, I've thus far seen no logic whatsoever that makes a compelling case for these judges to care about what the Supreme Court has to say. Between that and the evidence of other judges in other circuits essentially treating the Supreme Court's opinion as if it didn't exist, it seems clear that the result is going to be based strictly on what outcome these people want, and little else. This is a position I've argued for some time, and I've yet to see someone rebut it with a substantial argument. I'd love to believe that judges actually have something of value on the line here, but that doesn't appear to be the case at all (indeed, the evidence pretty clearly shows the opposite).
Question for Esq, any others that may know-This case, at least for the moment, is citable as authority? Once it's been brought to SCOTUS' attention, the cat's out of the bag so to speak, even if it goes en banc?
Question for Esq, any others that may know-This case, at least for the moment, is citeable as authority? Once it's been brought to SCOTUS' attention, the cat's out of the bag so to speak, even if it goes en banc?
A great man once said, "Don't tell me the odds."
You must unlearn, what you have learned. Prevail we must.
“The fear of loss is a path to the Dark Side.”
Should this decision be upheld (or its reasoning adopted by SCOTUS on some other appeal earlier), may-issue states could just allow for open carry to try to keep their restrictions on concealed carry. Or CA could rush to reinstate open carry, in an effort to make this decision moot so there would no longer be a split.
Question for Esq, any others that may know-This case, at least for the moment, is citeable as authority? Once it's been brought to SCOTUS' attention, the cat's out of the bag so to speak, even if it goes en banc?
I think we all (non-statistically speaking) "expected" a different decision from the ninth. The odds are against us, they may always be against us.
Sure, it is certainly citeable. it is precedent in the 9th Circuit and else where as well.
I think we all (non-statistically speaking) "expected" a different decision from the ninth. The odds are against us, they may always be against us.
Hope the case stands up to the en banc process. I sure would like to see it get to SCOTUS and this be solved one way or another.
Awesome. I'm sure SCOTUS was made aware of this at their conference yesterday with the NRA cases and Lane. I'm curious what the court does with these 3 cases.
It will require substantial dissent within the ranks of the Democrat-appointed judges for that to be likely.
Here are the probabilities of success based on the number of "defectors" among the Democrat-appointed judges. This is based on Konzinski heading up the panel, and drawing 10 judges from a pool of 26, when we presume that all Republican-nominated judges will side with us and we vary the number of "defectors" from the set of Democrat-nominated judges:
- 0 defectors: 11%
- 1 defector: 19%
- 2 defectors: 29%
- 3 defectors: 41%
- 4 defectors: 54%
- 5 defectors: 66%
- 6 defectors: 76%
- 7 defectors: 85%
- 8 defectors: 91%
- 9 defectors: 95%
- 10 defectors: 98%
- 11 defectors: 99%
- 12 defectors: 99.9%
- 13 defectors: 100%
So we need at least 4 defectors in order for the odds to swing in our favor.
If we presume the "limited en banc" procedure, wherein the original panel judges are excluded from the en banc panel, then we get:
So for that, we'd need at least 5 defectors in order for the odds to swing in our favor.
- 0 defectors: 3.5%
- 1 defector: 9%
- 2 defectors: 18%
- 3 defectors: 31%
- 4 defectors: 45%
- 5 defectors: 59%
- 6 defectors: 73%
- 7 defectors: 84%
- 8 defectors: 91%
- 9 defectors: 96%
- 10 defectors: 99%
- 11 defectors: 99.8%
- 12 defectors: 100%
Note that if we have 5 defectors who vote against taking the case en banc, then the en banc appeal will be denied then and there, but that someone might defect to our side does not automatically imply that they wish to see the en banc appeal itself denied, as they may want to have the opportunity to put their 2 cents in. However, I do regard that as unlikely, so the chances are good that if we have 5 or more "defectors" in the Democrat camp, then the appeal will be denied as long as the Republican-nominated judges all vote against the appeal.
Based on that, if the appeal isn't denied outright in the beginning, it's more likely than not that the original decision will be overturned.
We don't need to win en banc, but it would help. We need a very strongly worded "This is complete ********! 1 First get off your butts and fix this!" dissent, and given the 9th's rule on the chief judge sitting on the panel, I'd expect to get it.
It will require substantial dissent within the ranks of the Democrat-appointed judges for that to be likely.
Here are the probabilities of success based on the number of "defectors" among the Democrat-appointed judges. This is based on Konzinski heading up the panel, and drawing 10 judges from a pool of 26, when we presume that all Republican-nominated judges will side with us and we vary the number of "defectors" from the set of Democrat-nominated judges:
- 0 defectors: 11%
- 1 defector: 19%
- 2 defectors: 29%
- 3 defectors: 41%
- 4 defectors: 54%
- 5 defectors: 66%
- 6 defectors: 76%
- 7 defectors: 85%
- 8 defectors: 91%
- 9 defectors: 95%
- 10 defectors: 98%
- 11 defectors: 99%
- 12 defectors: 99.9%
- 13 defectors: 100%
So we need at least 4 defectors in order for the odds to swing in our favor.
If we presume the "limited en banc" procedure, wherein the original panel judges are excluded from the en banc panel, then we get:
So for that, we'd need at least 5 defectors in order for the odds to swing in our favor.
- 0 defectors: 3.5%
- 1 defector: 9%
- 2 defectors: 18%
- 3 defectors: 31%
- 4 defectors: 45%
- 5 defectors: 59%
- 6 defectors: 73%
- 7 defectors: 84%
- 8 defectors: 91%
- 9 defectors: 96%
- 10 defectors: 99%
- 11 defectors: 99.8%
- 12 defectors: 100%
Note that if we have 5 defectors who vote against taking the case en banc, then the en banc appeal will be denied then and there, but that someone might defect to our side does not automatically imply that they wish to see the en banc appeal itself denied, as they may want to have the opportunity to put their 2 cents in. However, I do regard that as unlikely, so the chances are good that if we have 5 or more "defectors" in the Democrat camp, then the appeal will be denied as long as the Republican-nominated judges all vote against the appeal.
Based on that, if the appeal isn't denied outright in the beginning, it's more likely than not that the original decision will be overturned.