Woollard v. Sheridan: Cert Denied - see pg 14
- Thread starter Al Norris
- Start date
maestro pistolero
New member
After reading all the briefs and amici, it seemed unimaginable that this wasn't ripe enough.
This is extremely disappointing. I only hope to God they are just waiting for the three cases out of the ninth circuit to be sure that all the issues are addressed when they finally take this up.
This is extremely disappointing. I only hope to God they are just waiting for the three cases out of the ninth circuit to be sure that all the issues are addressed when they finally take this up.
Mainly may-issue, but Gura also pointed out that without a permit OC is banned too. Same as will come up in California if we appeal from there.
What the hell? Are the circuits going to be allowed to write "bear arms" out of the constitution completely, same as they came up with "collective right" not too long after the ink was dry on Miller? But there's already a circuit split, and the Puerto Rico Supreme Court has gone the other way (following the 7th and a right to bear).
What the heck is going on here? What else is in the pipeline? The DC case?
Are the US Supremes waiting for a case where gunnies win a "bear arms" case at the circuit level and then a state government appeals in the fashion that Illinois didn't?
speedrrracer
New member
I have to disagree, we do not yet have a circuit split. PR was their lower court, and CA7 dealt with a total carry ban. The other opinions like Kachalsky,exc. are weaseling out of confining the right to the home on paper, but in reality they are. I believe they're trying hard to avoid a split at all costs.
If we win with Richards/Peruta, we'll have split with Drake,Woollard, and Kachalsky.
If Palmer ever gets to the DC Circuit and we lose, it'll split with Moore. Those scenarios may be the key.
If we win with Richards/Peruta, we'll have split with Drake,Woollard, and Kachalsky.
If Palmer ever gets to the DC Circuit and we lose, it'll split with Moore. Those scenarios may be the key.
If anyone has an opinion, please chime in...
What is the possibility that Justice Kennedy is the wrench in the works for this issue, i.e. carry rights? I'd heard that he doesn't approve of it, so there would go our "majority". If the other 4 Justices from Heller and McDonald know he'd "defect" in a carry rights case, would they try to derail a cert petition? Does this kind of "politicking" go on in their deliberations, or is this theory totally off the mark?
It would REALLY suck if it's true, because that would mean we'd get a bad SCOTUS ruling if the issue is ever forced...
Dan
What is the possibility that Justice Kennedy is the wrench in the works for this issue, i.e. carry rights? I'd heard that he doesn't approve of it, so there would go our "majority". If the other 4 Justices from Heller and McDonald know he'd "defect" in a carry rights case, would they try to derail a cert petition? Does this kind of "politicking" go on in their deliberations, or is this theory totally off the mark?
It would REALLY suck if it's true, because that would mean we'd get a bad SCOTUS ruling if the issue is ever forced...
Dan
Pretty good, actually. I'd also worry about Roberts. He and Kennedy might be on board for the shotgun under the bed, but not so comfortable with folks carrying pistols in public. That the Founders meant to protect individual ownership of arms is easily proven. Their intentions on carry are a bit trickier to discern.
Another possibility is that Scalia wants to pull back from the brink a bit, as he's mentioned a couple of times in the recent past. We can also expect serious resistance from Ginsburg, and Breyer (especially Breyer) on the issue. They've made statements indicating they refuse to accept the Heller decision and that the 2nd Amendment is a militia clause and nothing more.
Dan, absolutely there's politickin going on in case selection. I saw that scenario discussed during the DOMA/Prop 8 stuff. I only saw the article once, and one of the actual lawyer/court fans will have to correct anything I misremember but:
They decide on their cases in a conference. I think it's actually called In Conference. And there are apparently RULES and rules for how they should vote for or against cert. And the reporter suggested one of the judges may have played a little fast and loose with the lower case rules when voting for Cert, and the Court may have to somehow reverse granting cert thought a process I don't remember the name of.
Again, this was all speculation on the part of the reporter, and whatever he thought was going to happen somehow didn't.
But it does answer the question that yes, there is some level of politicking going on as far as case selection- at the very least in so far as judges won't grant cert in a case they want to "win" if they aren't pretty sure they've got a shot at "winning" the decision. It's better to leave it reviewable, than grant cert and have to find a way to tap dance around stare decisis.
They decide on their cases in a conference. I think it's actually called In Conference. And there are apparently RULES and rules for how they should vote for or against cert. And the reporter suggested one of the judges may have played a little fast and loose with the lower case rules when voting for Cert, and the Court may have to somehow reverse granting cert thought a process I don't remember the name of.
Again, this was all speculation on the part of the reporter, and whatever he thought was going to happen somehow didn't.
But it does answer the question that yes, there is some level of politicking going on as far as case selection- at the very least in so far as judges won't grant cert in a case they want to "win" if they aren't pretty sure they've got a shot at "winning" the decision. It's better to leave it reviewable, than grant cert and have to find a way to tap dance around stare decisis.
The Washington times has a good interview with Gura today. He's not too worried about Woollard losing its shot, and he suggests that the Court is waiting for a more clear split.
His next step is petitioning for Drake v. Filko.
His next step is petitioning for Drake v. Filko.
I wonder about the "more clear split"... if Moore in the 7th doesn't qualify as a split with Kachalsky, and now Woollard, how likely is it that the 3rd or the 9th will hand down decisions that will produce the "more clear" split?
I'll of course defer to Gura's judgement on whether or not to have optimism on how things will develop, but I have to wonder if he's trying to spin this and is actually discouraged, or even very discouraged, by this turn of events.
*sigh*
I was so hopeful with Woollard... now I'm wondering if the 5 of Heller and McDonald won't follow their own lead and treat the Second Amendment as a fundamental right.
Dan
I'll of course defer to Gura's judgement on whether or not to have optimism on how things will develop, but I have to wonder if he's trying to spin this and is actually discouraged, or even very discouraged, by this turn of events.
*sigh*
I was so hopeful with Woollard... now I'm wondering if the 5 of Heller and McDonald won't follow their own lead and treat the Second Amendment as a fundamental right.
Dan
speedrrracer
New member
I wonder if, at some point, it's still reasonable to have only one group of SCOTUS Justices. We have far more members in the House of Reps than ever before. The President has a legion of bureaucrats to help run this colossus. I'm sure this point has been raised a million times, I just haven't seen the discussion.
Clearly Supreme means Supreme, but nowhere does it say we're limited to only one set of Justices. We have 330+ million people, but the same number of SCOTUS Justices as back when this nation only had 30 million people.
Perhaps we should triple (or...) the number of Justices, and have the ability to resolve 3 times as many cases.
Clearly Supreme means Supreme, but nowhere does it say we're limited to only one set of Justices. We have 330+ million people, but the same number of SCOTUS Justices as back when this nation only had 30 million people.
Perhaps we should triple (or...) the number of Justices, and have the ability to resolve 3 times as many cases.
Press... yeah, and a win in the 9th would be great. But how likely are either the 3rd or 9th to "side with" the 7th?
I haven't heard anything that would lead me to believe that they will do anything other than follow the 2nd and 4th. The 7th wins in Moore and Ezell seem to be the only ones that have gone our way (which is, of course, the only correct one
). All the rest seem to distinctly lean as far in the other direction as they can, no matter how contorted they have to make their logic to do so.
I haven't heard anything that would lead me to believe that they will do anything other than follow the 2nd and 4th. The 7th wins in Moore and Ezell seem to be the only ones that have gone our way (which is, of course, the only correct one
). All the rest seem to distinctly lean as far in the other direction as they can, no matter how contorted they have to make their logic to do so.maestro pistolero
New member
One small point that gives me some hope is that Posner is so highly respected in circuit courts of appeal. If it were teetering at all, perhaps the ninth circuit would give additional serious consideration to "bear" after the Moore case.
In any case, I can't help but think that SCOTUS is very interested in how the cases in the ninth circuit shake out. I am certain they don't want to leave any stone unturned after all of this. They like issues to be fully ripe, and without the 9th decisions, they can't be certain to address all the issues that may surface.
Aside from two or three other significant cases outside of the ninth, we have little else on which to hang our hat of hope. The country's skill at sharpening pitchforks is woefully out of date. May it stay that way for a long time to come.
In any case, I can't help but think that SCOTUS is very interested in how the cases in the ninth circuit shake out. I am certain they don't want to leave any stone unturned after all of this. They like issues to be fully ripe, and without the 9th decisions, they can't be certain to address all the issues that may surface.
Aside from two or three other significant cases outside of the ninth, we have little else on which to hang our hat of hope. The country's skill at sharpening pitchforks is woefully out of date. May it stay that way for a long time to come.
Last edited:
Dan-the 3rd Circuit already ruled in Drake, they essentially followed the 2nd and 4th Circuits, although some of the reasoning was different. But a loss is a loss. After the CA9 case, there's a case waiting at the NJ Supreme Court(Pantano,I believe it could be heard around May of next year). There's some other cases further behind at various state/Federal district court levels.
I think the odds of a win at CA9 are pretty good from what I heard from the oral arguments. Then again these Federal Courts sometimes don't like being the odd man out and just want to follow the others just so they don't create a split.
I think the odds of a win at CA9 are pretty good from what I heard from the oral arguments. Then again these Federal Courts sometimes don't like being the odd man out and just want to follow the others just so they don't create a split.