En banc Decision in Peruta -- a loss

[Kharn]

I'm seeing Distributed for Conference 3/31/2017 on both links Kharn.

Hit Ctrl-F5 to do a hard refresh on both, your computer may be loading a cached copy of them.

 

[danb]

Mar 8 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 24, 2017.
Mar 23 2017 Rescheduled.
Mar 27 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 31, 2017.
Mar 30 2017 Rescheduled.

The only way to interpret this is as fantastic news.

 

[Kharn]

There must be some weird caching going on with the SC website, I can do Ctrl-F5 complete refreshes, sometimes I get the 23 March rescheduled entry as the last, other times I get the 27 March distributed entry, but neither my desktop or phone show the 30 March entry.

If I visit SCOTUSBlog's docket page, I see the 30 March entry.

 

[Mark75H]

There must be some weird caching going on with the SC website, I can do Ctrl-F5 complete refreshes, sometimes I get the 23 March rescheduled entry as the last, other times I get the 27 March distributed entry, but neither my desktop or phone show the 30 March entry.

If I visit SCOTUSBlog's docket page, I see the 30 March entry.

Data cache mirrored on 2 different servers, not updated on second server. Sometimes you read from server A, other times server B.

 

[press1280]

So I'm leaning towards it being rescheduled, as in this was decided the day before the conference, so Peruta has not been discussed at all in either conference.
What else could it be other than waiting for Gorsuch? He could be official by next conference (in 2 weeks), does he have a probation period, so to speak, or will he start picking cases right away?

 

[press1280]

Nothing on the order list.

 

[esqappellate]

Nothing on the order list.

Rescheduled by order entered 03/30. Not currently relisted for a conference. Probably will be relisted again. I am thinking that they may be waiting for Gorsuch. AT least I hope so.

 

[Inigoes]

Rescheduled by order entered 03/30. Not currently relisted for a conference. Probably will be relisted again. I am thinking that they may be waiting for Gorsuch. AT least I hope so.

After For such is confirmed tomorrow, we will know the answer.

 

[danb]

The next conference is Apr 13th. We may not know until after Easter.

I think that if they hold true to form, this will be relisted at least one more time.


I am not quite ordering the case of adult diapers for the CA Attorney General yet. But if they have a sale, I might stock up. I will send some to Kamila Harris too, seems likely her intervention could swing the court towards taking this.

 

[Peaceful John]

Guys, have I missed something here?

Some (seemingly) very good appeals were not heard by SCOTUS while Scalia was active. The speculation was that there was not a majority of Justices in favor. Now Gorsuch (pro-gun) replaces Scalia (pro-gun).

What makes us think that the post Gorsuch court will be better for us than the Scalia court?

 

[press1280]

Guys, have I missed something here?

Some (seemingly) very good appeals were not heard by SCOTUS while Scalia was active. The speculation was that there was not a majority of Justices in favor. Now Gorsuch (pro-gun) replaces Scalia (pro-gun).

What makes us think that the post Gorsuch court will be better for us than the Scalia court?

Circumstances have changed a bit (namely Norman/Peruta split), and perhaps Gorsuch may be able to persuade Kennedy and Roberts better than Scalia.
Otherwise we are simply back to status quo.

 

[ddestruel]

Guys, have I missed something here?

Some (seemingly) very good appeals were not heard by SCOTUS while Scalia was active. The speculation was that there was not a majority of Justices in favor. Now Gorsuch (pro-gun) replaces Scalia (pro-gun).

What makes us think that the post Gorsuch court will be better for us than the Scalia court?

A logical question thats been asked often.

one of the floated Theories has it that Kennedy is a wobbler. Caetano was unexpected but a fairly egregious shot back at the circuits and the 9th didn’t listen. The 9th CA went to the extreme route of ignoring a majority of the Peruta challenge and canned a very sound ruling for a very partisan one. The court went the unusual route of allowing new parties into the challenge, and rewrote the question, ignored major portions of the plaintifs claimand ignored the states regulatory system as a whole. Then the 9th went further than any of those other cases and stated in the en banc ruling that you have no right to concealed carry, where as all previous CA's avoided being so absolute. The absoluteness of that ruling and the semantics that went on are the root of the theory as to why it might be different.

Then add to that some are thinking Kennedy might be swayed to consider reinstating the previous 3 judge ruling some think the court may want to clarify further many think judge Gorsuch might just have enough of a past relationship having worked with Kennedy to get him to consider Peruta. Total crapshoot and a whole lot of speculation out there. I for one think that the fact Kennedy didn’t jump on board to deal with Jackson vs SF is a lingering pc of history that bothers me immensely.

The fact that quite a few 2nd amendment cases keep getting relisted would seem that there is alot of turmoil in that room when they are discussing whats going on and to me that says its gonna be a roller coaster for quite a few years. too bad we cant get a quarter of the judicial support as abortion right do

 

[GlocksAndPatriots]

To be honest, I think it's more likely that Robert is the holdout than Kennedy. Kennedy is a narcissist in the sense that he sincerely believes he's here to do God's work with respect to gay marriage and the death penalty. Roberts, on the other hand, is overly concerned with his "legacy;" that is, what the NY Times and Washington Post thinks of him. It's the latter type that would be more wishy-washy on gun control.

Also, Scalia was completely ignorant on the topic of guns, whereas Gorsuch, being from outside the Northeast, is less likely to be. I recall I went to an event where Scalia spoke, and when asked if machine guns would be in "common use" if not heavily regulated for so many years, he answered, "I don't know."

To me, this means he just doesn't know about guns. Being that there is very little design difference between the common AR15 and the military version with a three round burst option, I think it's safe to say that most civilians would opt for the burst/semi/safe model if it was available for roughly the same price.

 

[GlocksAndPatriots]

A logical question thats been asked often.

one of the floated Theories has it that Kennedy is a wobbler. Caetano was unexpected but a fairly egregious shot back at the circuits and the 9th didn’t listen. The 9th CA went to the extreme route of ignoring a majority of the Peruta challenge and canned a very sound ruling for a very partisan one. The court went the unusual route of allowing new parties into the challenge, and rewrote the question, ignored major portions of the plaintifs claimand ignored the states regulatory system as a whole. Then the 9th went further than any of those other cases and stated in the en banc ruling that you have no right to concealed carry, where as all previous CA's avoided being so absolute. The absoluteness of that ruling and the semantics that went on are the root of the theory as to why it might be different.

Then add to that some are thinking Kennedy might be swayed to consider reinstating the previous 3 judge ruling some think the court may want to clarify further many think judge Gorsuch might just have enough of a past relationship having worked with Kennedy to get him to consider Peruta. Total crapshoot and a whole lot of speculation out there. I for one think that the fact Kennedy didn’t jump on board to deal with Jackson vs SF is a lingering pc of history that bothers me immensely.

The fact that quite a few 2nd amendment cases keep getting relisted would seem that there is alot of turmoil in that room when they are discussing whats going on and to me that says its gonna be a roller coaster for quite a few years. too bad we cant get a quarter of the judicial support as abortion right do

Jackson v. SF? In my view, Highland Park was more egregious, in that the majority opinion outright admitted that the mere "perception" of public safety is enough to qualify as a benefit. That almost seemed like Easterbrook trolling, and the SC did nothing.

 

[ShafTed]

I've said things like this before, but I think this is a case of be careful what you wish for. As others have said, no one seems to know how Kennedy and Roberts will rule, hence the need for caution. Seeing some of Roberts' convoluted gyrations on Obama's health insurance fiasco makes me wonder what else he might be capable of doing on other issues.

My belief is that we need President Trump to get at least one more appointment under his belt before we can be sure of success. Ginsburg will either retire or expire as she chooses, and both Kennedy and Breyer aren't far behind her. Any of the above would do nicely. The worst possible circumstance would be for the SC to hear one of the important 2A cases and then go 5-4 in the wrong direction. It would only take minutes after such a horrendous decision for legislatures in about 8 or 9 states (including Maryland) to make sure that no one in their states could ever own any firearm ever again, and there would be absolutely nothing anyone could do about it for the next 50 years, if not longer.

 

[Peaceful John]

press1280, ddestruel, GlocksAndPatriots, thank you all. I understand now.

 

[fred333]

Scalia was completely ignorant on the topic of guns

I think, citing earlier "Frighting" laws, he was ambivalent as to the extent to which the framers intended the Second Amendment to go...

During an appearance on “Fox News Sunday,” Scalia was asked whether lawmakers have the right to ban high-capacity gun magazines without violating a person’s constitutional right to bear arms. The question comes less than two weeks after the Colorado shooting massacre that left 12 dead and dozens more injured — and at a time when neither President Barack Obama nor Congress appear willing to touch the issue of gun control.

“We’ll see,” Scalia said, suggesting that future court cases will determine what limitations on modern-day weapons are permissible.

“Some undoubtedly are [permissible] because there were some that were acknowledged at the time” the Constitution was written, Scalia said. He cited a practice from that era known as “frighting,” where people “carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head axe or something. That was, I believe, a misdemeanor.”

“So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed,” Scalia said. “What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time.”
Antonin Scalia: There Are "Undoubtedly" Limits To A Person’s Right To Carry Guns

 

[GlocksAndPatriots]

I've said things like this before, but I think this is a case of be careful what you wish for. As others have said, no one seems to know how Kennedy and Roberts will rule, hence the need for caution. Seeing some of Roberts' convoluted gyrations on Obama's health insurance fiasco makes me wonder what else he might be capable of doing on other issues.

My belief is that we need President Trump to get at least one more appointment under his belt before we can be sure of success. Ginsburg will either retire or expire as she chooses, and both Kennedy and Breyer aren't far behind her. Any of the above would do nicely. The worst possible circumstance would be for the SC to hear one of the important 2A cases and then go 5-4 in the wrong direction. It would only take minutes after such a horrendous decision for legislatures in about 8 or 9 states (including Maryland) to make sure that no one in their states could ever own any firearm ever again, and there would be absolutely nothing anyone could do about it for the next 50 years, if not longer.

I see your point, but I'd rather have it go that way than have the status quoa, which is that we have Heller in theory, but enough lower court decisions that Heller has absolutely no legal effect. At least the former might lead to a Concon or a peaceable separation of the states.

 

[gruntz03]

Perhaps they are pissed that one of their rulings(Heller) constantly gets ignored.

 

[Boxcab]

I was presented with a theory today that the Anti 2A Supremes may want another chance to at least influence the evolution of SC 2a rulings before something happens that would allow Prez Trump to fill another slot, or three. If they do not get things locked down within the next couple of years they may be out numbered and unable to have any influence in the outcome.

Just a musing...



.