FILED: March 6, 2024AGAIN...It's the same link posted on the previous page in post 1657.
And the Date for the Oral Arguments is the same.
Why do you keep posting stuff that has already been posted?
That's today.
FILED: March 6, 2024AGAIN...It's the same link posted on the previous page in post 1657.
And the Date for the Oral Arguments is the same.
Why do you keep posting stuff that has already been posted?
It's the same ORDER and REQUIREMENT as the original, you even copy/pasted the original.FILED: March 6, 2024
That's today.
dblas,
Chillax
Burke is trying to be helpful
It was posted as a CORRECTED COPY. Which means the wording changed.It's the same ORDER and REQUIREMENT as the original, you even copy/pasted the original.
You left out the very last sentence with regards to submitting 16 copies.
What you posted was the exact same wording as the original and made it look EXACTLY like the original order.
YOU SCREWED UP THE POST, OWN IT.
And you left out the corrected verbiage when you did your copy and paste.It was posted as a CORRECTED COPY. Which means the wording changed.
Have a nice day.
By copy pasting the original order and saying it was the updated order?dblas,
Chillax
Burke is trying to be helpful
No, I posted the LATEST order. I bow to you as the Provost of the thread.By copy pasting the original order and saying it was the updated order?
I don't think so.
Mar 07 2024 | Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 12, 2024. |
Latest update:
This case is scheduled for oral argument on March 20, 2024.
The parties are directed to file supplemental briefs specifically addressing the
following issue:
Whether the inquiry into a weapon’s “common use” occurs at the first
step or second step of the framework articulated in New York State Rifle
& Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022). In
answering that question, the parties are to address who has the burden
of establishing a weapon’s “common use.”
The parties may submit simultaneous briefs, not exceeding ten pages, on or
before Tuesday, March 12, 2024.
NRA v. Vullo is up in the next couple weeks, which is a 1A Case
Mar 07 2024 Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 12, 2024.
Huh! wonder if this will affect the Orals on 20 March?
Maybe I missed something?
Does the First Amendment allow a government regulator to threaten regulated entities with adverse regulatory actions if they do business with a controversial speaker, as a consequence of (a) the government's own hostility to the speaker's viewpoint or (b) a perceived "general backlash" against the speaker's advocacy?
Mar 07 2024 Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 12, 2024.
Huh! wonder if this will affect the Orals on 20 March?
Maybe I missed something?
While I completely agree, this was also entirely expected. It would have been highly unusual for SCOTUS to deny the extension given they already (edit made here) had the chance to hear the case, but GVR'd it, and are now waiting for 4th circuit en banc to happen which just so happens to be within the time period filings were requested.I really wish they’d stop granting every fvcking extension
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Same.I really wish they’d stop granting every fvcking extension
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
SCOTUS did NOT in fact hear the case, they held it, and other cases, pending the outcome of Bruen. They then accepted the case, GVR'd it and told the lower court to rehear it based on the new jurisprudence from Bruen.While I completely agree, this was also entirely expected. It would have been highly unusual for SCOTUS to deny the extension given they already heard the case, GVR'd it, and are now waiting for 4th circuit en banc to happen which just so happens to be within the time period filings were requested.
Should 4th Circuit en banc (probably inevitably) produce a blatantly fabricated result, SCOTUS will be ready to slap the 4th circuit back to reality within the next term.
+1dblas,
Chillax
Burke is trying to be helpful
Correct I should have been more careful with the wording there. I knew what I meant to say and it didn't come out right.SCOTUS did NOT in fact hear the case, they held it, and other cases, pending the outcome of Bruen. They then accepted the case, GVR'd it and told the lower court to rehear it based on the new jurisprudence from Bruen.
The 4th Circus reheard the case over a year ago, and without a ruling from the 3 judge panel, issued the en banc requirement, and here we are.
No worries.Correct I should have been more careful with the wording there. I knew what I meant to say and it didn't come out right.