Victory in MSI HQL suit

[pre64hunter]

En Banc means that it will be heard by all 4th circuit judges. Really there's no time frame. Probably months - maybe a year - maybe longer.

I have stopped believing that court is anything to do with justice - it has more to do with theater and advancing their political ideals. There is no doubt in my mind that they will push this as long as they can. If they can they will wait for the SCOTUS makeup to change so they can decide how they want and not be at risk of being overturned.

Thanks.
Doing a little googling, 4th CC has 15 judges, as of July this year 14 with one vacancy. 8 of them appointed by Clinton, Obama and Biden, 3 by Trump, 1 by Reagan, 2 by Bush.
I also found a list of en banc cases showing dates of the appeal and time frame for decisions. Yes, most were months maybe a year or longer.

 

[swinokur]

THT refers to 1791 and 1868. Anything in the last 150 years is irrelevant.

And since none of the founders were alive in 1868, that date is also pretty much irrelevant

 

[shootin the breeze]

Thanks.
Doing a little googling, 4th CC has 15 judges, as of July this year 14 with one vacancy. 8 of them appointed by Clinton, Obama and Biden, 3 by Trump, 1 by Reagan, 2 by Bush.
I also found a list of en banc cases showing dates of the appeal and time frame for decisions. Yes, most were months maybe a year or longer.

Yes, so you already can predict the outcome of en banc hearing, hence why they requested it. Then another 5-10 years to get to SCOTUS. So 15-20 years to overturn an unconstitutional law, assuming the court is the same at that time. Yay, “justice”. Fourth box.

 

[Apd09]

I really do not understand the law sometimes. SCOTUS vacated previous rulings and said apply the Bruen (Heller really test / standard) the courts do that and then the state disagrees and wants further review from En Banc.
If the 3 judges are not capable to applying the law then why have a 3 judge panel and instead just automatically make appeals En Banc.

Mandate was given in the GVR, it’s applied as per the GVR, where is the confusion in the ruling of the 3 judge panel?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JohnnyE]

"common-sense" Is that their argument?

I shall tell you what common sense is.

Common sense is keeping a fire extinguisher under you kitchen sink even if after 60 years you've never had a fire.

Common sense is having a smoke detector in your home, even though the only times it has ever gone off are when you're overdoing something in the oven or skillet.

Common sense is having automobile insurance even though over perhaps a million miles of driving (a real number), you've never injured a single soul and made a sizable claim.

Common sense is wearing your seatbelt every mile you're on the road even if, after a lifetime, it's never once been needed to keep you from hurtling through the windshield.

Common sense is having firearms in case you're accosted, or your government needs to be kept in line, or needs a reset, even though these things have never happened during your lifetime either.

 

[Lafayette]

I shall tell you what common sense is.

Common sense is keeping a fire extinguisher under you kitchen sink even if after 60 years you've never had a fire.

Common sense is having a smoke detector in your home, even though the only times it has ever gone off are when you're overdoing something in the oven or skillet.

Common sense is having automobile insurance even though over perhaps a million miles of driving (a real number), you've never injured a single soul and made a sizable claim.

Common sense is wearing your seatbelt every mile you're on the road even if, after a lifetime, it's never once been needed to keep you from hurtling through the windshield.

Common sense is having firearms in case you're accosted, or your government needs to be kept in line, or needs a reset, even though these things have never happened during your lifetime either.

Beautifully said.

Sadly as my father told me, “If common sense was all that common, more people would have it.”

 

[CharlieFoxtrot]

They REQUESTED an en banc hearing. Doesn’t mean they will get it. Obviously if en banc is granted it will stretch out the timeline much longer than if it’s denied.

 

[trickg]

They REQUESTED an en banc hearing. Doesn’t mean they will get it. Obviously if en banc is granted it will stretch out the timeline much longer than if it’s denied.

Does anyone here doubt that the en banc request will be granted? I don't. I see it as par for the course.

 

[Zaicran]

License to OWN! License to Carry, either concealed or open- No License need to be required- It's All an infringement. Period- Full Stop.

Careful, last time I said that around here out came the sarcastic comments.

 

[shootin the breeze]

Does anyone here doubt that the en banc request will be granted? I don't. I see it as par for the course.

Of course, especially with the makeup of the 4th, i.e. mostly appointed by dimturds.

 

[Garet Jax]

Thanks.
Doing a little googling, 4th CC has 15 judges, as of July this year 14 with one vacancy. 8 of them appointed by Clinton, Obama and Biden, 3 by Trump, 1 by Reagan, 2 by Bush.
I also found a list of en banc cases showing dates of the appeal and time frame for decisions. Yes, most were months maybe a year or longer.

See if you can filter by 2A cases. I think you'll find these generally have a much longer decision time frame. Again justice vs theater.

 

[Garet Jax]

They REQUESTED an en banc hearing. Doesn’t mean they will get it. Obviously if en banc is granted it will stretch out the timeline much longer than if it’s denied.

Do you really think it won't be granted? Here's my prediction, the 4th circuit will take as long as possible to make the decision on whether or not they will grant it. They will of course accept the hearing. Then they will take as long as possible to make a decision in the case. If the SCOTUS makeup is in their favor, they will overturn the ruling. If SCOTUS isn't in their favor, then I am not sure.

I think they will uphold it since they don't want to risk setting a national precedent.

This has nothing to do with justice or the constitution, it is all political theater.

EDIT - What I don't understand is why SCOTUS isn't taking the bull by the horns and forcing the decision down the State's throats. I get "this isn't what is done", but times change. In the past, courts truly evaluated their decisions and made the ones they thought were best based on the law. Today, justices have made their mind up before arguments largely based on their political leanings and they spend their time trying to justify their position. They bastardize "precedent" and interpret it to justify their decision - it is sickening.

 

[pcfixer]

I don't believe "IF" En banc will happen or if full court would favor US in review.!! No likely.

 

[pcfixer]

Careful, last time I said that around here out came the sarcastic comments.

Not sarcastically from me.

 

[swinokur]

Don’t also not forget that common sense is having a spare tire in your car even though for 40 years you’ve never had a flat.

 

[pre64hunter]

Don’t also not forget that common sense is having a spare tire in your car even though for 40 years you’ve never had a flat.

all very good examples but the have it "just in case" doesn't preclude the other measures of preventing tragedy like having a gun or other means of protection to prevent something from happening.

 

[swinokur]

 

[pcfixer]

What is the New Order from 4th circuit?

4th Circuit court "Shenanigans."

 

[swinokur]

No new order. It’s just that orals in the Mo Co case have been postponed indefinitely

 

[swinokur]

Perhaps because the state case decided the questions and there is nothing left to litigate.

Just musings