krucam
Ultimate Member
Thread Bump. GVR from SCOTUS back to CA9
So they want it reheard from the ground up, and also want the order restraining CA from enforcing the law vacated while that's happening. That probably gives CA several years of being able to enforce the ban in spite of Bruen, once the case has gone from District through 3-judge panel, to en banc, finally to get smacked down again by SCOTUS, assuming enough of the Bruen 6 are still on the Court.CA (Bonta) brief to the en banc court on the impact of Bruen
Why do you assume the judge will go along with it? Given the strong language in Bruen, you’d be delusional to think it’s not getting smacked down.So they want it reheard from the ground up, and also want the order restraining CA from enforcing the law vacated while that's happening. That probably gives CA several years of being able to enforce the ban in spite of Bruen, once the case has gone from District through 3-judge panel, to en banc, finally to get smacked down again by SCOTUS, assuming enough of the Bruen 6 are still on the Court.
Why do you assume the judge will go along with it? Given the strong language in Bruen, you’d be delusional to think it’s not getting smacked down.
I'm not assuming what way the judges will go, just saying what would happen if their request was granted and why they would have asked for that type of relief.Why do you assume the judge will go along with it? Given the strong language in Bruen, you’d be delusional to think it’s not getting smacked down.
Lol. I know the calls, sir.I'm not assuming what way the judges will go, just saying what would happen if their request was granted and why they would have asked for that type of relief.
As for delusional, we are talking 9CA, after all. They get SCOTUS smackdowns like I get extended car warranty spam calls.
It erased the "2A Two-Step" as a legitimate way to (mis)interpret COTUS.Did Bruen re-write it... or reiterate it...?
Kolbe though can no longer be used as any form of precedent. It was at one time. But I can no longer be anymore.It erased the "2A Two-Step" as a legitimate way to (mis)interpret COTUS.
The complete body of law includes both statutory and common law. Bruen created a template for new common law. The problem is the template gets to be filled in by some of the same lower courts that created the pre-Bruen mess. Does anyone really think the majority of 2CA and 9CA are suddenly going to see the light, or will they just try to justify continuing to implement their pre-existing anti2A biases with more twisted logic to provide a patina of Bruen compliance?
SCOTUS also still hasn't really addressed the deference issue. It's hard to get a law overturned in court when the court treats the State's arguments as presumptively correct, like the District Judge did in Kolbe.
I know it's no longer precedent, but the judge's blind acceptance of the ipse dixit arguments from the state made a permanent impression on me about how a court can simply ignore any and all opposing evidence when the judge is biased in favor of the state's position from the get-go. It upended my notions of how courts are supposed to decide based on the evidence presented, not the identity of the parties.Kolbe though can no longer be used as any form of precedent. It was at one time. But I can no longer be anymore.
All three were Republican appointed. Jordan (G W Bush), Matey (Trump), and Roth (G H W Bush)Dissenting Judge is a Trump appointee... good read.
It is going to come down to how the cases get argued. The circuits certainly are not going to see the light, but I don't believe they are going to adopt completely unreasonable arguments either. The courts did not simply defer to the State for no reason, they did it because they perceived the issue as a political issue due to the conflicting evidence that was presented to them.It erased the "2A Two-Step" as a legitimate way to (mis)interpret COTUS.
The complete body of law includes both statutory and common law. Bruen created a template for new common law. The problem is the template gets to be filled in by some of the same lower courts that created the pre-Bruen mess. Does anyone really think the majority of 2CA and 9CA are suddenly going to see the light, or will they just try to justify continuing to implement their pre-existing anti2A biases with more twisted logic to provide a patina of Bruen compliance?
SCOTUS also still hasn't really addressed the deference issue. It's hard to get a law overturned in court when the court treats the State's arguments as presumptively correct, like the District Judge did in Kolbe.