What is the Status of Peruta

Status
Not open for further replies.
It could be they are looking for a 5th vote.
Click to expand...

I often hear guys say something like this . Not picking on you rwilson . How accurate are statements like that for any given case . Are they waiting for a 5th vote for cert or a likely 5th vote to over turn .

I have to assume or at least want to believe none of the judges know how they will vote until they've actually heard the case ? How ever I keep hearing people seeming to say they wont take a case unless they have the votes . How do they know if they have the votes if none of them have heard the arguments ??
 
The answer, Metal God, is that the petition for cert, the opposition and the reply pretty much set out not just the issue but the essential arguments that will be made and the authority relied upon. the actual briefing simply expands and expounds upon those themes, and allows others a chance to chime in with their own opinions and research-i.e., to add the scholarship that will eventually inform the opinion. Thus, by the time the petition is actually considered by the court, the various justices have a pretty good idea how they feel about the particular subject in issue.
 
The justices already have their world views on gun rights. 4 oppose them in principle. They do not exist.

One strongly supports them (Thomas). The others are wishy-washy when it comes to actually changing current laws to expand carry, limit state bans and the like. They were OK with theoretical blather like Heller and McD for gun rights, but when it comes to now getting more guns and more types of guns out there in use by knocking down state regs - they are not there at all. Gorsuch, even he is an advocate as strong as Scalia - which is unknown, does not change this balance.

As far as briefs and opinions - I have said before that they all have a world view on guns, they then mine past decisions, opinions, etc. to support their position. They do not have views changed by new 'scholarship' or reasoning. They tell their clerks to write for what they know they want to do.

The idea that SCOTUS will void state bans and mandate all states become shall issue is a pipe dream with the current court and probably for the reasonable future courts.

It's all 'reasonable restrictions'. The peasants can have shotgun and a revolver at home at best for some of them. For the others, not even that.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
As far as briefs and opinions - I have said before that they all have a world view on guns, they then mine past decisions, opinions, etc. to support their position. They do not have views changed by new 'scholarship' or reasoning. They tell their clerks to write for what they know they want to do.
Click to expand...

That is pretty piss poor behavior for a judge.
 
That is pretty piss poor behavior for a judge.
Click to expand...

More like a politician with a robe.

And I was under the (mistaken) understanding that well reasoned thought went into their opinions. It turns out it is just the third (political) arm of our system of our government.

:(
 
This coming week is kind of a big deal. since there is only one session left, the Court will either grant or deny, or be forced to kick it over to next term. If it goes over, and if one of the justices retires (there are two for whom there is a distinct possibility), the possibility of a grant increases if Trump is able to confirm another pro-2A justice. So until next week....
 
They've denied cert for Peruta. It won't be heard this session.

The Order List [pdf] contains a dissent [p. 30] written by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch which is worth reading.

We should have granted certiorari in this case. The approach taken by the en banc court is indefensible, and the petition raises important questions that this Court should address. I see no reason to await another case.
Click to expand...

The Court’s decision to deny certiorari in this case reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right. (...) The Constitution does not rank certain rights above others, and I do not think this Court should impose such a hierarchy by selectively enforcing its preferred rights.
Click to expand...

For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it.
Click to expand...
 
There are rumors today that Justice Kennedy may retire.Justice Ginsburg does not have long.
I don't have a source,but I heard Pres Trump has said he will continue to select from his list.
Of course,nothing is certain,other than there will be a battle over the next SCOTUS Justice.

IMO,at this point, I have a guarded optimism the makeup of SCOTUS may soon be more favorable to 2A decisions.

So,"Declined to hear" is not all bad.

We could have one or two originalists in the near future.
 
The problem is that the rest of the 'conservative' justices don't care about the issue. They couldn't be counted on to vote in a pro 2nd Amend. fashion.

They at best probably think a Biden Special shot gun or at best SW Model 10 under the pillow is what the 2nd is all about. Carrying guns, assault rifles, hi cap mags - not for their tender souls.

The SCOTUS is useless for expansion of gun rights anymore, IMHO. The solution has to be legislative but the GOP has no real interest in such. Just progun blather and no real action. Gets votes and money for progun advocacy organizations.
 
I would like to add that the solution is not to wait for the golden moment from SCOTUS.

Congress in the past has protected other civil rights (such as antidiscrimination and voting rights legislation) in concert with SCOTUS decisions.

It is time for Congress to stop playing around with minor matters like the HPA. It is time to propose legislation that:

1. Comes up with a reasonable scheme for reciprocity (not allowing a higher standard based on what NY or CA might want).

2. Forbid state bans on weapons type, mags, ammo that exceed Federal legislation.

However, Congress won't do that. In my tin foil mind, the progun forces prefer to have restrictions out there to generate uproar and votes. Vote for us because the other party is worse. So we just get meaningless blather at the NRA convention.

Now stopping new gun bans on the Fed level is just fine. But playing defense doesn't cut it. If I were the NRA - I would tell the progun party - that they become MORE proactive (cut screwing around with some other issues) and move progun stuff or we just might not campaign so hard for you.

The other party found out that ignoring the wishes and needs of its constituents reduced turn out. That's a hint.

Both parties and their advocacy groups really don't want to come to a real solution as then folks won't pay attention or vote for them. It's a devil's pact.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top