[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Drake vs. NJ (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 4/17/2014 2:59:20 AM EDT
|
SCOTUS decides whether or not to hear Drake Friday.
Not sure why they would choose this case over Kachalsky or the Maryland case...exact same arguments...exact same situations. Maybe the split between the 2nd and 9th circuits (and the other circuits) will help? My guess...they take the cowardly route and deny it also. They have been compromised by activists. |
|
I agree that SCOTUS is going to turn it down. They seem perfectly happy to have stated the Second Amendment is a fundamental civil right and then let the lower courts trample all over it. Should they take up a case at some future date, the longer they wait, the more entangle the mess becomes. |
|
Personally: They aren't going to take it.
If they do it will be because of Peruta. Right now California wants nothing to do with taking that case to SCOTUS (hard to argue with a ruling based on constitutional requirements instead of dissenting opinion interest balancing), so the 9th is hashing out whether Brady or some other fucktard group can take up the case. |
| SCOTUS is bought and paid for - they are gutless ninnies. They're hiding out thinking they'll leave SCOTUS and live out the rest of their lives in comfort. When the financial chickens come home to roast and the economy implodes, they'll be wondering who the mobs of FSA are breaking into their castles and guzzling the expensive burgundies and merlot while they gang rape their grandchildren. |
|
Quoted:
SCOTUS is bought and paid for - they are gutless ninnies. They're hiding out thinking they'll leave SCOTUS and live out the rest of their lives in comfort. When the financial chickens come home to roast and the economy implodes, they'll be wondering who the mobs of FSA are breaking into their castles and guzzling the expensive burgundies and merlot while they gang rape their grandchildren. woah |
What the... 
Look, the Peruta decision pretty much ensures that SCOTUS needs to take one of these cases to resolve the conflicting decisions in the Circuits. Which one? I have no idea. Sit back, relax and don't stress out over something none of us has any control over. Just my 2 cents. |
|
Quoted:
What the...
Look, the Peruta decision pretty much ensures that SCOTUS needs to take one of these cases to resolve the conflicting decisions in the Circuits. Which one? I have no idea. Sit back, relax and don't stress out over something none of us has any control over. Just my 2 cents. Quoted:
What the...
Look, the Peruta decision pretty much ensures that SCOTUS needs to take one of these cases to resolve the conflicting decisions in the Circuits. Which one? I have no idea. Sit back, relax and don't stress out over something none of us has any control over. Just my 2 cents. Aye. SCOTUSblog is open, waiting for the announcement ... fingers crossed. They posted it as their petition of the day yesterday: Petition of the day The petition of the day is: Drake v. Jerejian 13-827 Issue: (1) Whether the Second Amendment secures a right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense; and (2) whether state officials violate the Second Amendment by requiring that individuals wishing to exercise their right to carry a handgun for self-defense first prove a “justifiable need” for doing so. |
|
Quoted:
Annnnnnd the wait begins. Quoted:
Editor's Note : On Monday at 9:30 a.m. we expect orders from the April 18 Conference. On both Tuesday and Wednesday we expect one or more decisions in argued cases; we will be live blogging both days beginning at 9:45 a.m. Annnnnnd the wait begins. Retarded. Adjourned for Easter, I guess =/ |
|
Quoted:
While I agree, we should also see it with the perspective that there was a 69-year gap between SCOTUS' Heller and Miller decisions. Quoted:
Quoted:
Well today is the day. We will see how cowardly scotus is again I bet. While I agree, we should also see it with the perspective that there was a 69-year gap between SCOTUS' Heller and Miller decisions. And a bill from Az that was similar to "may issue" for abortion made its way through the CA9 at a record pace (6mo IIRC) |
|
I only scrolled through it quickly but unless I missed it, it looks like they have not gotten to Drake today.
Breaking News : The Court has granted three new cases: Heien v. North Carolina (13-604), Zivotofsky v. Kerry (13-628), and Johnson v. United States (13-7120). http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/042114zor_c0n2.pdf |
|
Quoted:
And a bill from Az that was similar to "may issue" for abortion made its way through the CA9 at a record pace (6mo IIRC) Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well today is the day. We will see how cowardly scotus is again I bet. While I agree, we should also see it with the perspective that there was a 69-year gap between SCOTUS' Heller and Miller decisions. And a bill from Az that was similar to "may issue" for abortion made its way through the CA9 at a record pace (6mo IIRC) reproductive "rights", yo |
|
Quoted:
I only scrolled through it quickly but unless I missed it, it looks like they have not gotten to Drake today. http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/042114zor_c0n2.pdf Quoted:
I only scrolled through it quickly but unless I missed it, it looks like they have not gotten to Drake today. Breaking News : The Court has granted three new cases: Heien v. North Carolina (13-604), Zivotofsky v. Kerry (13-628), and Johnson v. United States (13-7120). http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/042114zor_c0n2.pdf Re-conference for 4/25 |
|
Looks like it is still listed as pending as of 1400hrs
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/drake-v-jerejian/ |
|
Quoted:
They want to take it. They just are afraid of the Liberal Media. If so, they would have announced it at the end of the day on Friday. That way they have the weekend for the furor of the liberal media to die down and hope that some other interesting news item surfaces before the weekly news cycle restarts. They will duck this case just like all the other 2nd Amendment cases recently. |
|
Quoted: If so, they would have announced it at the end of the day on Friday. That way they have the weekend for the furor of the liberal media to die down and hope that some other interesting news item surfaces before the weekly news cycle restarts. They will duck this case just like all the other 2nd Amendment cases recently. Quoted: Quoted: They want to take it. They just are afraid of the Liberal Media. If so, they would have announced it at the end of the day on Friday. That way they have the weekend for the furor of the liberal media to die down and hope that some other interesting news item surfaces before the weekly news cycle restarts. They will duck this case just like all the other 2nd Amendment cases recently. I am curious as to who the justices are that have been denying the cases. I would not be surprised if Scalia, Thomas and Alito want a case, the four progressives do not and there is a toss-up with Roberts and Kennedy. Still I would prefer no ruling at all, with the ability to still move to a free state, than a terrible ruling that officially eviscerates the Second Amendment and opens the door for tough nationwide regulation at the Federal level. |
|
Quoted:
If so, they would have announced it at the end of the day on Friday. That way they have the weekend for the furor of the liberal media to die down and hope that some other interesting news item surfaces before the weekly news cycle restarts. They will duck this case just like all the other 2nd Amendment cases recently. Quoted:
Quoted:
They want to take it. They just are afraid of the Liberal Media. If so, they would have announced it at the end of the day on Friday. That way they have the weekend for the furor of the liberal media to die down and hope that some other interesting news item surfaces before the weekly news cycle restarts. They will duck this case just like all the other 2nd Amendment cases recently. Of course they are going to duck it. Until a state (Like Hawaii and Commiefornia just did) gets it's pee-pee smacked in court and petition, they don't care about us lowly serfs. |
|
Quoted:
I am curious as to who the justices are that have been denying the cases. I would not be surprised if Scalia, Thomas and Alito want a case, the four progressives do not and there is a toss-up with Roberts and Kennedy. Still I would prefer no ruling at all, with the ability to still move to a free state, than a terrible ruling that officially eviscerates the Second Amendment and opens the door for tough nationwide regulation at the Federal level. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They want to take it. They just are afraid of the Liberal Media. If so, they would have announced it at the end of the day on Friday. That way they have the weekend for the furor of the liberal media to die down and hope that some other interesting news item surfaces before the weekly news cycle restarts. They will duck this case just like all the other 2nd Amendment cases recently. I am curious as to who the justices are that have been denying the cases. I would not be surprised if Scalia, Thomas and Alito want a case, the four progressives do not and there is a toss-up with Roberts and Kennedy. Still I would prefer no ruling at all, with the ability to still move to a free state, than a terrible ruling that officially eviscerates the Second Amendment and opens the door for tough nationwide regulation at the Federal level. I would think Scalia is as likely to refuse to hear a case if he feels the vote would not be in our favor. 
|
|
Well here we are...we find out today in 30 minutes if SCOTUS has gone full blown coward.
I think they will deny cert...even though they have NO reason to do so...there is a clear and divisive split between circuits regarding shall and may issue. A clear disparity of rights. A perfect time to step in. But they won't. |
|
Officially redistributed for the May 2nd conference.
WTF is going on? Whatever...I don't have much hope...they are probably delaying it to make it LOOK like they are "desperately" trying to grant cert and give it a fair shake...but they are probably laughing behind closed doors because they know they won't take it. |
|
Quoted:
Officially redistributed for the May 2nd conference. WTF is going on? Whatever...I don't have much hope...they are probably delaying it to make it LOOK like they are "desperately" trying to grant cert and give it a fair shake...but they are probably laughing behind closed doors because they know they won't take it. I really doubt that are playing games like that. SCOTUS is not afraid to deny cert--they do it all the time on high stakes cases. There are justices keeping this one alive for a reason. |
|
Quoted:
I really doubt that are playing games like that. SCOTUS is not afraid to deny cert--they do it all the time on high stakes cases. There are justices keeping this one alive for a reason. Quoted:
Quoted:
Officially redistributed for the May 2nd conference. WTF is going on? Whatever...I don't have much hope...they are probably delaying it to make it LOOK like they are "desperately" trying to grant cert and give it a fair shake...but they are probably laughing behind closed doors because they know they won't take it. I really doubt that are playing games like that. SCOTUS is not afraid to deny cert--they do it all the time on high stakes cases. There are justices keeping this one alive for a reason. So this may actually be a good sign? |
|
Quoted:
And...not listed as a case that was accepted. Big surprise. What does it mean to be relisted 2 times??? Are they waiting on Peruta and the 9th circuit in Cali to be completely resolved? I did a little looking around regarding other cases, if you read some of the articles on Scotus blog you will see that relisting is very common and is seen as a sign that the Justices are researching the case. Some cases were relisted many, many times before being heard. I think this is a good sign that shows SCOTUS knows the ramifications of the case and wants to make sure this is the right one to review. |
|
Quoted:
I did a little looking around regarding other cases, if you read some of the articles on Scotus blog you will see that relisting is very common and is seen as a sign that the Justices are researching the case. Some cases were relisted many, many times before being heard. I think this is a good sign that shows SCOTUS knows the ramifications of the case and wants to make sure this is the right one to review. Quoted:
Quoted:
And...not listed as a case that was accepted. Big surprise. What does it mean to be relisted 2 times??? Are they waiting on Peruta and the 9th circuit in Cali to be completely resolved? I did a little looking around regarding other cases, if you read some of the articles on Scotus blog you will see that relisting is very common and is seen as a sign that the Justices are researching the case. Some cases were relisted many, many times before being heard. I think this is a good sign that shows SCOTUS knows the ramifications of the case and wants to make sure this is the right one to review. IANAL, but I agree with this too. SCOTUS will happily deny without a seconds hesitation. If they are relisting it, they are either researching it in more depth, or possibly, they just haven't gotten around to it yet. It wouldn't surprise me if they put it last on their to-do list and are not there yet. Either way, it's not a denial. |
|
Quoted:
I did a little looking around regarding other cases, if you read some of the articles on Scotus blog you will see that relisting is very common and is seen as a sign that the Justices are researching the case. Some cases were relisted many, many times before being heard. I think this is a good sign that shows SCOTUS knows the ramifications of the case and wants to make sure this is the right one to review. Quoted:
Quoted:
And...not listed as a case that was accepted. Big surprise. What does it mean to be relisted 2 times??? Are they waiting on Peruta and the 9th circuit in Cali to be completely resolved? I did a little looking around regarding other cases, if you read some of the articles on Scotus blog you will see that relisting is very common and is seen as a sign that the Justices are researching the case. Some cases were relisted many, many times before being heard. I think this is a good sign that shows SCOTUS knows the ramifications of the case and wants to make sure this is the right one to review. One case has 19 relists. But I will stick to the fact that SCOTUS doesnt care about the 2a unless a state appeals a decision. |
|
Quoted:
I did a little looking around regarding other cases, if you read some of the articles on Scotus blog you will see that relisting is very common and is seen as a sign that the Justices are researching the case. Some cases were relisted many, many times before being heard. I think this is a good sign that shows SCOTUS knows the ramifications of the case and wants to make sure this is the right one to review. One case has 19 relists. But I will stick to the fact that SCOTUS doesnt care about the 2a unless a state appeals a decision. In McDonald v. Chicago, SCOTUS reversed the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that had held Chicago's gun ban valid. In that case, it was McDonald and the NRA (consolidated cases) that were the petitioners. The conservative side of the Court really does want to solidify and define the 2A right. They have shown that. There is so much politics and maneuvering involved in granting and denying cert, though, and the margin of pro-2A justices is so thin that it is impossible to predict what is going on behind the closed doors. |
|
Quoted:
Officially redistributed for the May 2nd conference. WTF is going on? Whatever...I don't have much hope...they are probably delaying it to make it LOOK like they are "desperately" trying to grant cert and give it a fair shake...but they are probably laughing behind closed doors because they know they won't take it. Not the case. They have no problem denying cert. Like the one they just denied against Obama for indefinite detention of "terrorists," including US citizens. That's a huge case that they should absolutely clarify, but they DENIED cert nonetheless. |