X-Actly!Every time I open this thread, I feel like Charlie Brown hoping to kick the football.
X-Actly!Every time I open this thread, I feel like Charlie Brown hoping to kick the football.
Incorrect.I think it’s time to realize the NRA is more of a political lobbying machine ...
Frosh is no longer the AG. Anthony Brown is the AG and the case is now known as Bianchi v Brown.I hope Frosh is sweating bullets that they take the case and Bianchi v Frosh becomes the next Bruen to advance guns rights even further which will be quoted and cited for years to come.
Yeah! But I like to always like to remember Frosh and think of him every day if I am regular. So I would like to see some of his "legacy" get flushed down the Frosh hole.Frosh is no longer the AG. Anthony Brown is the AG and the case is now known as Bianchi v Brown.
OP said he couldn't edit the thread title to correct misnomer "remits" to "remands." I guess he didn't want to impose on mods to do it for him.To the OP: Although there are over 1,400 responses already, would you please consider changing one word in the thread title from "remits," to "remands," to represent the courts' legal procedure used? I variously cringe and rejoice whenever this "remits" thread pops up:
SCOTUS "remands" cases, it doesn't "remit" them, afaik.
From the looks of it, we're going to have to become increasingly conversant in the legal system's lingo and should make every effort to comport with it.
Unless there is a time out, I have been able to edit title threads by editing the first post.OP said he couldn't edit the thread title to correct misnomer "remits" to "remands." I guess he didn't want to impose on mods to do it for him.
SCOTUS didn't "remit" this case.
You might tell the OP that.Unless there is a time out, I have been able to edit title threads by editing the first post.
You can edit thread titles with this software.OP said he couldn't edit the thread title to correct misnomer "remits" to "remands." I guess he didn't want to impose on mods to do it for him.
SCOTUS didn't "remit" this case.
Hey, I'm just the messenger. Tell OP.You can edit thread titles with this software.
I suspect that they will waive the right to respond.A response to a petition for cert is due 30 days after it is placed on the docket.
En banc arguments are on 3/20/24.
So per the rules, MD will need to respond on or about the week of 3/11/24, right in the middle of their argument prep for all three cases.
The state will submit a 30 day extension request around 2/26 and receive it as a matter of course as a government body, but could another cert petition arrive.
Imagine the memes and Downfall edits if someone could get enough votes to grant cert without a response in this extraordinary circumstance.I suspect that they will waive the right to respond.
SCOTUS will not grant cert without a response. If someone waives a response, SCOTUS will request a response before granting cert.Imagine the memes and Downfall edits if someone could get enough votes to grant cert without a response in this extraordinary circumstance.
The question would be a response from who in this extraordinary circumstance?SCOTUS will not grant cert without a response. If someone waives a response, SCOTUS will request a response before granting cert.