press1280 Posted May 10, 2015 at 03:46 PM Share Posted May 10, 2015 at 03:46 PM I don't understand the fast tracking to SCOTUS. You have at least a shot at en banc, which would erase the Freidman opinion and get us back to square one. Further, the IL state courts aren't bound by CA7 (although it's certainly persuasive authority). So Wilson can still win with the Freidman opinion in place. And even though the opinion was crappy, SCOTUS reviews actual judgments, not the opinions contained in the judgments, and with SCOTUS' passing on ALL 2A cases I think it highly unlikely they jump on the very first AWB case to reach it.Remember that SCOTUS won't even act on a Freidman petition (even one filed tomorrow) until the opening conference in late September/early October. En banc would be likely granted or denied by then anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid Posted December 7, 2015 at 06:53 PM Share Posted December 7, 2015 at 06:53 PM The Wilson case will be before Judge Cohen on December 17th. He had placed it on a “stay” until Friedman was resolved on its petition for cert.The judge will either set it for trial sometime in early 2016 or he may decide to rule based on the Friedman decision in the federal appellate court. If he decides to rule against us based on Friendman, we would then appeal his decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoadyRunner Posted December 7, 2015 at 11:14 PM Share Posted December 7, 2015 at 11:14 PM The Wilson case will be before Judge Cohen on December 17th. He had placed it on a “stay” until Friedman was resolved on its petition for cert. The judge will either set it for trial sometime in early 2016 or he may decide to rule based on the Friedman decision in the federal appellate court. If he decides to rule against us based on Friendman, we would then appeal his decision. Nice! Then on to the IL supreme, 7th Circuit (who are both going to cite 7th circuit president) then another appeal to SCOTUS right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTriple Posted December 8, 2015 at 12:14 AM Share Posted December 8, 2015 at 12:14 AM The Wilson case will be before Judge Cohen on December 17th. He had placed it on a “stay” until Friedman was resolved on its petition for cert.The judge will either set it for trial sometime in early 2016 or he may decide to rule based on the Friedman decision in the federal appellate court. If he decides to rule against us based on Friendman, we would then appeal his decision. Nice! Then on to the IL supreme, 7th Circuit (who are both going to cite 7th circuit president) then another appeal to SCOTUS right?I wouldn't get too excited..the reality is that for a judge deciding the constitutionality of a law, a higher court's decision carries a lot of weight. Since this is the 2A we're talking about, there's no guarantee that Cohen would rule to strike the ban. Although it's not binding precedent, the denial of cert issued by the SCOTUS would still be ammunition for the antis and the judges in this state certainly aren't inclined to uphold the 2A unless they have to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
POAT54 Posted December 18, 2015 at 05:20 AM Share Posted December 18, 2015 at 05:20 AM The Wilson case will be before Judge Cohen on December 17th. He had placed it on a “stay” until Friedman was resolved on its petition for cert.The judge will either set it for trial sometime in early 2016 or he may decide to rule based on the Friedman decision in the federal appellate court. If he decides to rule against us based on Friendman, we would then appeal his decision. Has anyone heard any news? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid Posted December 18, 2015 at 07:55 PM Share Posted December 18, 2015 at 07:55 PM This morning, Judge Cohen was told that Victor Quilici (lead attorney for Wilson) had passed away, and was asked for some additional time to sort out how plaintiffs would like to move forward in the case.Judge Cohen understood, and asked us to return on February 5 for another status conference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
POAT54 Posted December 18, 2015 at 09:45 PM Share Posted December 18, 2015 at 09:45 PM Thank you for your response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCroskey Posted February 2, 2016 at 06:44 PM Share Posted February 2, 2016 at 06:44 PM Three days! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plinkermostly Posted February 2, 2016 at 07:16 PM Share Posted February 2, 2016 at 07:16 PM Three days! What??? Something in three days??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted February 2, 2016 at 07:16 PM Share Posted February 2, 2016 at 07:16 PM Three days! What??? Something in three days??? Druid mentioned that Judge Cohen asked them to return on 2/5/2016. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCroskey Posted February 2, 2016 at 07:25 PM Share Posted February 2, 2016 at 07:25 PM Three days! What??? Something in three days??? Druid mentioned that Judge Cohen asked them to return on 2/5/2016. Yes, three days and then we can start nagging him for updates again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTriple Posted February 2, 2016 at 11:56 PM Share Posted February 2, 2016 at 11:56 PM Anyone wanna proffer theories on what will happen next? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplant Posted February 3, 2016 at 12:31 AM Share Posted February 3, 2016 at 12:31 AM Unless a judge wants to thumb his nose at Easterbrook's pathetic feelings and emotions trump rights ruling which is controlling in the 7th circuit, I doubt we get anything material out of Wilson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silhouette Posted February 3, 2016 at 03:25 AM Share Posted February 3, 2016 at 03:25 AM Wilson is filed in state court so the 7th circuit opinion is not binding (though it may be found to be compelling especially given that the case was held pending the result of Friedman). Regardless, appeal (by either side) would go to the State Supreme Court (again) and that decision could be appealed (via cert petition) directly to SCOTUS bypassing the 7th. I don't know if Wilson has preserved any issues of state law ("Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." -- a legal morass if there ever was one...) If so, the IL supreme court could escape all scrutiny from SCOTUS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defaultdotxbe Posted February 3, 2016 at 04:45 AM Share Posted February 3, 2016 at 04:45 AM Would the court be able to consider whether the handguns defined as "assault weapons" violate the preemption in the FCCA? I know Wilson predates the FCCA by several years, but I don't think there have been any substantial changes to the ban since the case began Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCroskey Posted February 5, 2016 at 06:43 PM Share Posted February 5, 2016 at 06:43 PM I wonder if the Maryland decision could give some wings to Wilson? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTriple Posted February 5, 2016 at 06:58 PM Share Posted February 5, 2016 at 06:58 PM I wonder if the Maryland decision could give some wings to Wilson?Regardless of the outcome, to whom would Wilson be appealed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defaultdotxbe Posted February 5, 2016 at 07:35 PM Share Posted February 5, 2016 at 07:35 PM I wonder if the Maryland decision could give some wings to Wilson? Regardless of the outcome, to whom would Wilson be appealed? Silhouette outlines that above, from the circuit court it would go to the IL Supreme Court, then to SCOTUS from there Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTriple Posted February 6, 2016 at 12:46 AM Share Posted February 6, 2016 at 12:46 AM I wonder if the Maryland decision could give some wings to Wilson? Regardless of the outcome, to whom would Wilson be appealed?Silhouette outlines that above, from the circuit court it would go to the IL Supreme Court, then to SCOTUS from there Sent from my SM-G920P using TapatalkWhat do our chances look like at the Illinois Supreme Court? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defaultdotxbe Posted February 6, 2016 at 05:48 PM Share Posted February 6, 2016 at 05:48 PM I wonder if the Maryland decision could give some wings to Wilson? Regardless of the outcome, to whom would Wilson be appealed?Silhouette outlines that above, from the circuit court it would go to the IL Supreme Court, then to SCOTUS from there Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk What do our chances look like at the Illinois Supreme Court? Considering that the CA7 found the Highland Park ban (a verbatim copy of Cook's ban) to be constitutional, and the IL state constitution has less protection of the right to keep and bear arms, I'd say we don't have a snowball's chance in [heck] BUT, if the CA4 ruling holds then we will have a bona-fide circuit split when appealing to SCOTUS, which will make them more likely to take the case Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted February 6, 2016 at 10:59 PM Share Posted February 6, 2016 at 10:59 PM The ILSC has been altering its opinions in cases which conflict with SCOTUS precedent so I wouldn't expect a departure from that policy any time soon. It modified a case out of Sterling where a cop pulled a man over after running the tags, finding out that the registrant had an outstanding warrant. Too bad the driver wasn't the registrant...or a woman (registrant is female). LEO knew he didn't stop the subject of the warrant and continued with the stop, found the driver had a suspended license. Court tossed it then reinstated the conviction after Rodriguez v. U.S. was decided. Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid Posted February 9, 2016 at 10:55 PM Share Posted February 9, 2016 at 10:55 PM Last week, there was another continuation for Wilson. The court continued the case in light of the 4th Circuit’s decision regarding the Maryland ban, and the soon-to-be-filed petitions for writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to review the 2d Circuit’s decision on the New York and Connecticut bans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gearsmithy Posted February 9, 2016 at 11:14 PM Share Posted February 9, 2016 at 11:14 PM Pardon my ignorance, but does that mean the case is on hold waiting SCOTUS to decide weather or not they want to address the split? Edit: oops looks like I'm confused again, what I meant to say was waiting g for the fourth circuit to apply strict scrutiny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid Posted February 9, 2016 at 11:33 PM Share Posted February 9, 2016 at 11:33 PM It's on hold for six months. Which at that point, there will be another hearing to assess further continuation or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoRonin70 Posted February 9, 2016 at 11:57 PM Share Posted February 9, 2016 at 11:57 PM Is the hold for six months sort of like the "30-day" letter the ISP has been sending out? If so, this could go on for a long time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTriple Posted February 10, 2016 at 12:07 AM Share Posted February 10, 2016 at 12:07 AM Last week, there was another continuation for Wilson. The court continued the case in light of the 4th Circuit’s decision regarding the Maryland ban, and the soon-to-be-filed petitions for writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to review the 2d Circuit’s decision on the New York and Connecticut bans.[/size]Normally I'd cheer this, but given our luck with Friedman and the fact that Kennedy might not side with us if cert is granted, I feel like giving out a loud groan. Who knows, maybe our luck will be better, or maybe we'd be tying our own noose on the "assault weapons" issue. Best of luck I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted February 10, 2016 at 07:38 PM Share Posted February 10, 2016 at 07:38 PM When Kolbe is finally judged on by CA4, presumably after Blake is forced to eat crow on remand, hold trial or grant summary judgment finding in favor of Plaintiffs and that judgment is affirmed by the Circuit, SCOTUS will have to take it. It's a significant departure from stare decisis and would be almost an automatic cert grant because of the constitutional question. This isn't like Moore. CA4's mandate in Kolbe creates a huge equal protection issue. Well, will create after Blake has to reverse herself. Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTriple Posted February 10, 2016 at 11:13 PM Share Posted February 10, 2016 at 11:13 PM When Kolbe is finally judged on by CA4, presumably after Blake is forced to eat crow on remand, hold trial or grant summary judgment finding in favor of Plaintiffs and that judgment is affirmed by the Circuit, SCOTUS will have to take it. It's a significant departure from stare decisis and would be almost an automatic cert grant because of the constitutional question. This isn't like Moore. CA4's mandate in Kolbe creates a huge equal protection issue. Well, will create after Blake has to reverse herself. Sent from my VS986 using TapatalkAgain, I agree with the bolded section, but my concern is this: while the SCOTUS should grant cert when the time comes, they haven't always ruled the way they should have in different cases throughout the course of their history. While it is a slam dunk, they could decide to knock the ball away just because they can. We know the court is split in half on the 2A, and Kennedy is believed to have come to regret supporting Heller and McDonald. He can't be relied upon to rule correctly on any future 2A cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted February 27, 2016 at 10:07 PM Share Posted February 27, 2016 at 10:07 PM This creates a huge problem. That problem being those who live within the jurisdiction of the Fourth Circuit basically have more rights than those under the jurisdiction of the other federal circuits. We get the asinine intermediate scrutiny using the two-step "Does/do the conduct or item(s) in question fall under the protection of the Second Amendment? If so, how much does this law burden the right." Well I have to say that's a ridiculously subjective question. Just because they say it's a de minimis burden doesn't mean anything. It's the opinion of three unelected, unaccountable, likely partisan judges. I respect Chief Judge Traxler for tossing politics to the wayside and interpreting the Second Amendment as written. Not as some archaic, deprecated Constitutional Amendment that doesn't really apply today because the Founders couldn't have foreseen the firearms in use today. Of course the Framers didn't expect us to be using muskets today. Only an idiot would believe that technology doesn't improve. They couldn't have imagined the future but they were intelligent enough to realize that, like any civilization, we would improve on or develop new technology. Anything less is myopic. While Kennedy may regret his decisions in Heller and McDonald, it really doesn't matter. He's on record. So for him to do a complete 180 would be unprecedented. "I supported if before I didn't support it." What would concern me, with the Court being 4-4 (or even 5-4) is the question involving the standard of judicial review. Thank God we have the Scalia and Thomas dissents in denial of cert in Jackson and Friedman. We do not apply different standards to different rights. First Amendment gets more protection than Second. No question. That should not be the case. The Constitution's guarantees are not contingent on a body count. Besides, the First Amendment is far more dangerous than the Second. Bottom line is that I'd feel better if we get a Republican in the WH and Ginsburg (and likely Kennedy, Breyer as well) retire soon. Remember, Kennedy said he wouldn't retire unless a Republican is elected POTUS. Get a Dem POTUS and we will see a Court where the Rule of Four is rendered useless because Roberts and Alito will be the only two conservative (compared to Sotomayor) Justices left. With seven liberals on the Court, they'll be able to do whatever they want from the bench. "health insurance is a basic right" "a job is a civil right" "college education is a right" "abort your child whenever you want. Even post-birth." Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawman Posted February 28, 2016 at 05:42 AM Share Posted February 28, 2016 at 05:42 AM "Supreme Court rules that you have the constitutional right to an abortion through the fourth tri-mester." lol. Sounds like an Onion article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.