SCOTUS cases - end of session guessing

Inigoes · May 15, 2015

With the current session of the Supreme court winding down in the next 6 weeks. We might get to hear the outcome of the Johnson and Henderson cases sooner rather than later. They are small potatoes compared to the others.

The court will save the big ticket items of ObamaCare and Gay Marriage until the end.

~~Henderson - disposition of seized firearms after a conviction~~

Johnson - SBS possession a violent felony

~~King V Burwell - aka ObamaCare~~ Obama wins!

~~Zivotofsky v Kerry - whether the Judicial system, recognizes Jerusalem as part of Israel.~~ Court struck down the law recognizing Israel!

~~Comptroller of MD v Wynne - Interstate income taxation~~

Obergefell v Hodges - Gay Marriage

danb · May 15, 2015

Johnson will probably be last, this is the one they heard again for unconstitutional vagueness.

MDFF2008 · May 15, 2015

Gay marriage will be last. Obamacare second to last.

Bertfish · May 15, 2015

gprimr1 said:
Gay marriage will be last. Obamacare second to last.

I wonder if they plan to hold release of the most anticipated opinions til the last day

MDFF2008 · May 15, 2015

That's usually how they do it. The most landmark cases are released the last day

danb · May 15, 2015

gprimr1 said:
That's usually how they do it. The most landmark cases are released the last day

Coincidentally, right as they leave town for summer vacation or speeches or whatever they do.

Inigoes · May 15, 2015

danb said:
Coincidentally, right as they leave town for summer vacation or speeches or whatever they do.

Those decisions tend to leave the biggest splash, because there will be no new opinions to shift people's focus too.

Kharn · May 15, 2015

Even if the result of Johnson is voiding the Armed Career Criminal law, they won't release that on the last day. It'll be gay marriage and Obamacare for sure that day.

danb · May 18, 2015

two down!

rem87062597 · May 18, 2015

For Obergefell v. Hodges...

Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

Does that have 2A implications? I'm thinking carry permits.

Dingo3 · May 18, 2015

rem87062597 said:
For Obergefell v. Hodges...

Does that have 2A implications? I'm thinking carry permits.

I've asked that same question myself.

Inigoes · May 18, 2015

rem87062597 said:
For Obergefell v. Hodges...

Does that have 2A implications? I'm thinking carry permits.

Dingo3 said:
I've asked that same question myself.

In a round a bout way, yes.

If the courts opine/define a set of rules, then everyone has to play by those rules. We just follow the rule book to get 2A applied.

Bagpiperer · May 18, 2015

rem87062597 said:
Does that have 2A implications? I'm thinking carry permits.

Possibly, but there will be great resistance among even conservative jurists to distorting the meaning of the full faith and credit clause in such a fashion. It's been noted that there are edge cases where a marriage which is permitted in one state is legally prohibited in another - those laws are, to the extent of my knowledge, essentially unchallenged.

Similarly, the driver's license issue was solved by, in essence, a gentlemen's agreement between the states, rather than by federal statute or litigation. Concealed carry reciprocity would ideally be handled similarly, but it's unlikely it will be, because states like Maryland are likely to be recalcitrant.

It's honestly not clear to me how denial of the right to marry a same sex partner constitutes a violation of either equal protection (everyone has the right to marry an opposite-sex partner, after all) or due process (the procedure is the same regardless of sexual orientation). Politically, Republicans probably should avoid the issue of gay marriage on the national scale, saying that defining marriage has historically been a state's prerogative, and that allowing legislatures to experiment without judicial interference would be the most salutary outcome.

SigNerd · May 19, 2015

Bagpiperer said:
It's honestly not clear to me how denial of the right to marry a same sex partner constitutes a violation of either equal protection (everyone has the right to marry an opposite-sex partner, after all) or due process (the procedure is the same regardless of sexual orientation).

Loving v. Virginia said:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

From the unanimous (9-0) Opinion of the Court on Loving v. Virginia written by Chief Justice Earl Warren.

MDFF2008 · May 19, 2015

It could be interesting to make the arguement, but I think the one big issue is going to be:

A marriage would still be a marriage, gay or straight. Same general requirements. With CCW permits, requirements vary radically across state lines.

Brooklyn · May 19, 2015

gprimr1 said:
It could be interesting to make the arguement, but I think the one big issue is going to be:

A marriage would still be a marriage, gay or straight. Same general requirements. With CCW permits, requirements vary radically across state lines.

So what? It is exactly because they vary that they are unconstitutional.. particularly if they make it impractical or impossible for non residents or visitors to carry.

No state has the power to violate rights.. period..

The easiest way is to force acceptance of out of state permits, until such time as an instate permit can be granted..

It will depend on how long and cumbersome the process is.

That's a 2a issue.. .but recipority is also a 14 a issue..

W can't duck from this fight... the MD disease is spreading..

Inigoes · May 26, 2015

9:30 am: orders from the Court's May 20 Conference,
10:00 am: one or more opinions from the argued cases.

Maybe we will see a GVR from Jackson today.

esqappellate · May 29, 2015

Inigoes said:
9:30 am: orders from the Court's May 20 Conference,
10:00 am: one or more opinions from the argued cases.

Maybe we will see a GVR from Jackson today.

Oh, I hope we see summary reversal. Not merely a GVR, which is usually reserved for cases in which the Court has issued a new opinion in another case and the remand is for reconsideration in light of the new opinion.

Inigoes · May 29, 2015

esqappellate said:
Oh, I hope we see summary reversal. Not merely a GVR, which is usually reserved for cases in which the Court has issued a new opinion in another case and the remand is for reconsideration in light of the new opinion.

If the SCOTUS actually released verbiage on the remand specifically stating the 2A is applied equally outside the home as well as inside would be the greatest coup d'etat

Inigoes · Jun 1, 2015

Coming down to the wire, only 5 days left to let out orders and opinions.

SCOTUS cases - end of session guessing

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Head'n for the hills

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Throw bread on me

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Head'n for the hills

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Annapolis, MD

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

Active Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

I stand with John Locke.

Head'n for the hills

President, MSI

Head'n for the hills

Head'n for the hills

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics