Jump to content

What If Chicago Loses Its Gun Case?


xbaltzx

Recommended Posts

Link to Article

 

As the Supreme Court's term enters its last month, we still await the Court's ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Second Amendment challenge to Chicago's handgun ban. The case poses the question whether the right to be armed recognized by the Court in its 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller applies to constrain state and local gun laws. Although most observers think the same five justices who made up the 5-4 Heller majority will vote to extend the right to states, cities and counties, many may be too quick to predict dire consequences for gun control from such a ruling.

 

Two consequences are most likely from a ruling striking down Chicago's handgun ban. First, the decision will be used by the gun lobby, as well as gun criminals, to challenge a myriad of state and local gun laws. Second, with few exceptions, those challenges will fail. We can say this with some confidence for several reasons.

 

First, it is important to keep in mind the nature and scope of the right that would be applied to states and localities. In the words of Justice Scalia's majority opinion, the Second Amendment guarantees "the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home." The Heller decision confers no rights on those who have violated the law or acted irresponsibly. In addition, the Heller right applies only to self-defense in the home, not to carrying guns in public. Although some have expressed concern that a ruling against Chicago would cripple "stop and frisk" and other law enforcement tactics against illegal carrying of guns on the street, nothing in Heller itself would jeopardize those tactics.

 

Second, the Heller majority went out of its way to make clear that strong gun regulation short of a handgun ban would still be permissible, regardless of the new right to be armed. According to Justice Scalia, the Second Amendment right is not "to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Instead, the Court said, "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt" on several broad categories of gun laws, which the Court said remain "presumptively lawful." Those categories, which the Court said did "not purport to be exhaustive," include laws imposing conditions on the sale of guns (which could include background checks, licensing, registration, etc.), bans on dangerous and unusual weapons (which could include machine guns and assault weapons), and prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons. Heller's assurance that prohibiting concealed weapons remains "presumptively lawful" further suggests that extending the Heller right to the states would pose no threat to police tactics against illegal guns on the streets.

 

Heller's narrow definition of the right to be armed, and its reassuring language about other guns laws, thus far have ensured the defeat of virtually every post-Heller challenge to federal gun restrictions. (Two judges struck down provisions of the Adam Walsh Act barring gun possession by persons awaiting trial for child pornography offenses, a vindication of "gun rights" about which the NRA has been oddly silent.) Even the strong gun laws passed by the District of Columbia in the wake of Heller, which include a registration system, fingerprinting and training requirements, an assault weapon ban, a limit on gun purchases, and other provisions far stronger than federal law, recently were upheld as entirely consistent with Heller. This should embolden Chicago to enact similarly strong laws even if its handgun ban is struck down.

 

In assessing the likely impact on other gun laws of a Chicago defeat, one additional fact generally has been overlooked. As the gun lobby likes to boast, forty-two states already have provisions in their state constitutions interpreted by the courts to confer an individual right to be armed for personal purposes unrelated to militia service; that is, an interpretation similar to that given the Second Amendment in Heller. Gun laws in those states already have been challenged under these state constitutional provisions and, as Professor Adam Winkler of UCLA Law School writes, "only a fraction of state gun laws have been invalidated on the basis of the right to bear arms since World War II."

 

Of course, these state court rulings are not binding on the federal or state courts as they apply the new Heller right. Nevertheless, in all but eight states, those bringing Second Amendment challenges to state and local gun laws will confront a consistent judicial tradition of according great leeway to legislative judgments about how the right to be armed may properly be regulated. And of the six states that do not have right to bear arms provisions in their constitutions (California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York), or that recognize only a militia-related right (Kansas and Massachusetts), all but Iowa, Minnesota and Kansas have very strong traditions favoring gun control and, of course, no tradition of judicial interference with gun laws.

 

If Chicago's law is struck down, it will no doubt be hailed by the NRA as a great victory, as was Heller. But the most ardent "gun rights" advocates can barely hide their disappointment with the practical impact of Heller. They likely have more disappointments to come after McDonald.

 

For more information, see Dennis Henigan's Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy (Potomac Books 2009).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Henigan's spinning on this one is making me dizzy.

 

It's amazing ... the Brady's came out after Heller, calling the ruling a victory for common-sense gun control laws. Good lord. Perhaps only the most delusional lawyers could make a purse out of a pig's ear.

 

I am getting excited for the ruling ...

 

I think a lot of what he writes is true.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that Daley will copy and push through every single restriction that the District of Columbia enacted after Heller.

 

What remains to be seen though, is the reaction of the residents of Chicago and to a lesser extent of the residents of Illinois.

 

I am hoping that a decision in our favor in MacDonald will force the politicians to actually respond to what the majority of citizens of Illinois actually want, that is, gun laws equal to what is available in the rest of the country.

 

A favorable ruling in MacDonald just means that a battle has been won but winning the war to get a "shall issue" concealed carry law in Illinois will still be a long way off.

 

Illinois Carry, the ISRA , Town Hall meetings and the NRA are still the only weapons we currently have in our aresenal and they need constant support

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This sentence shows just how out-of-touch the author is:

 

First, the decision will be used by the gun lobby, as well as gun criminals, to challenge a myriad of state and local gun laws.

 

Does he REALLY think that "gun criminals" will challenge the law? Criminals by definition could care less about laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This sentence shows just how out-of-touch the author is:

 

First, the decision will be used by the gun lobby, as well as gun criminals, to challenge a myriad of state and local gun laws.

 

Does he REALLY think that "gun criminals" will challenge the law? Criminals by definition could care less about laws.

 

Amazingly enough, once they are in the pokey they find the time to care about and challenge the laws that put them there. Most lose. Every defense attorney is obligated by their client relationship to try whatever legal means necessary to get their client acquitted or at least a reduced sentence, so every felon-in-possession challenges and loses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I'm getting tired of the waiting....and the unrelenting speculation. As I told one member of this forum,"...time seems be flying by in most respects, but the McDonald vs Chicago ruling always seems to be over a month away!"

 

One thing I'm still unclear on, if the Second Amendment is incorporated, will punitive judgments be a possibility when rights denied cases are decided in favor of the plaintiff, as some have stated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I'm getting tired of the waiting....and the unrelenting speculation. As I told one member of this forum,"...time seems be flying by in most respects, but the McDonald vs Chicago ruling always seems to be over a month away!"

 

One thing I'm still unclear on, if the Second Amendment is incorporated, will punitive judgments be a possibility when rights denied cases are decided in favor of the plaintiff, as some have stated?

 

A victory in McDonald will open access under section 1983 for civil actions for civil rights violations. I would no expect much on that front in Illinois until there are some more substantial state or federal court decisions about the limits of Heller & MacDonald.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some time back, I heard the Supreme Court would have their descision on McDonald on June 2, 2010. That being 90 days from the arguments on the gun ban. Yet, I have not heard much on it lately.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some time back, I heard the Supreme Court would have their descision on McDonald on June 2, 2010. That being 90 days from the arguments on the gun ban. Yet, I have not heard much on it lately.

 

If I read the calendar correctly, they won't issue any opinions on the second of June, only on Mondays during this month except for today, because of the Holiday. I've heard McDonald will be on the last day of opinions, according to this calendar, that would be the 28th.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some time back, I heard the Supreme Court would have their descision on McDonald on June 2, 2010. That being 90 days from the arguments on the gun ban. Yet, I have not heard much on it lately.

 

If I read the calendar correctly, they won't issue any opinions on the second of June, only on Mondays during this month except for today, because of the Holiday. I've heard McDonald will be on the last day of opinions, according to this calendar, that would be the 28th.

 

Man, as far as this decision goes, I feel like Bill Murray's character in Ground Hog Day.

 

And the McDonald decision is always a month away....day...after day...after day...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some time back, I heard the Supreme Court would have their descision on McDonald on June 2, 2010. That being 90 days from the arguments on the gun ban. Yet, I have not heard much on it lately.

 

If I read the calendar correctly, they won't issue any opinions on the second of June, only on Mondays during this month except for today, because of the Holiday. I've heard McDonald will be on the last day of opinions, according to this calendar, that would be the 28th.

 

Man, as far as this decision goes, I feel like Bill Murray's character in Ground Hog Day.

 

And the McDonald decision is always a month away....day...after day...after day...

 

At least we're in the right month!! It will be less than a month now. Less than 4 weeks if that helps! The decision will be announced on or before the next 29th of the month!!

 

Does any of that help??

 

AB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some time back, I heard the Supreme Court would have their descision on McDonald on June 2, 2010. That being 90 days from the arguments on the gun ban. Yet, I have not heard much on it lately.

 

If I read the calendar correctly, they won't issue any opinions on the second of June, only on Mondays during this month except for today, because of the Holiday. I've heard McDonald will be on the last day of opinions, according to this calendar, that would be the 28th.

 

Man, as far as this decision goes, I feel like Bill Murray's character in Ground Hog Day.

 

And the McDonald decision is always a month away....day...after day...after day...

 

At least we're in the right month!! It will be less than a month now. Less than 4 weeks if that helps! The decision will be announced on or before the next 29th of the month!!

 

Does any of that help??

 

AB

 

A little. I'm not a very patient person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a lot of what he writes is true.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that Daley will copy and push through every single restriction that the District of Columbia enacted after Heller.

 

What remains to be seen though, is the reaction of the residents of Chicago and to a lesser extent of the residents of Illinois.

 

I am hoping that a decision in our favor in MacDonald will force the politicians to actually respond to what the majority of citizens of Illinois actually want, that is, gun laws equal to what is available in the rest of the country.

 

A favorable ruling in MacDonald just means that a battle has been won but winning the war to get a "shall issue" concealed carry law in Illinois will still be a long way off.

 

Illinois Carry, the ISRA , Town Hall meetings and the NRA are still the only weapons we currently have in our aresenal and they need constant support

 

I have to agree. The best we can realistically hope for is a new set of battles to fight. We'll be on offense, for a change, which is no small matter, but we'll still be a l-o-n-g way from shall not be infringed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really dont see what this ruling will do for us other than being able to transport a REVOLVER through chicago.

It seems the Supreme court are careful not to take power away from the lower courts. And the mayor that likes to bulldoze airport runways in the middle of the night will make the current impossible schemes in DC look like a joke.

 

Look forward to

Hi capacity ban

AWB

Expensive registration

finger printing

prolonged wait time on registration applications

insurance policies for gun owners

transport in approved cases only

 

Daley is beyond stupid. He will do anything he can get away with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really dont see what this ruling will do for us other than being able to transport a REVOLVER through chicago.

It seems the Supreme court are careful not to take power away from the lower courts. And the mayor that likes to bulldoze airport runways in the middle of the night will make the current impossible schemes in DC look like a joke.

 

Look forward to

Hi capacity ban

AWB

Expensive registration

finger printing

prolonged wait time on registration applications

insurance policies for gun owners

transport in approved cases only

 

Daley is beyond stupid. He will do anything he can get away with.

 

 

Well, they already have the hi-cap ban, AWB and can require fingerprinting (but they don't)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I view Heller combined with McDonald as the base. Many will still try to deny that base exists, but when they actually try to rest their gun banning case upon it, they will lose. When they lose, the cost will be enormous in terms of $$$$$$. THAT is what it is going to take for politicos to wake up to the reality about how meaningful these two decisions really are.

 

Sure, McDonald isn't even out yet, but there is no stopping it, really.

 

GF has a great point, 2 years from Heller to McDonald is a fast track as far as SCOTUS goes. I am confident enough to say that more will follow. I say that because the waterfall of litigation is coming, I suspect a great deal of which will be in the criminal defense arena, and SCOTUS will be forced to take up the issues presented quickly and straightforwardly. Conflicting opinions from lower courts will abound, forcing their hand. In some ways, this is why I think SCOTUS will surprise many regarding McDonald. Gura set the stage with his brief and there is just no way to avoid it anymore. Roberts alluded to this when he spoke about Heller during McDonald orals.

 

SCOTUS knows full well that a full on assault of commerce clause case law is afoot. As state after state lines up to challenge it on Tenth Amendment grounds pertaining to firearms, it would behoove SCOTUS to go farther than they normally would with McDonald in attempt to stave off such a challenge via that vehicle. That antis lost on the Second, are about to lose on the Fourteenth because of the Second and know a loss on the tenth because of those two would be the hat trick that breaks the federal camel's back. I see a big win in the gun rights arena being offered in order to try to avoid a total near future destruction of commerce clause case law.

 

I think it futile, as the tenth Amendment challenges are going to go forward anyway, and will eventually win the day just like Heller did and McDonald is doing now, but Heller unlocked a longstanding gridlock and there is no stopping what is happening. Slow it down? Maybe. Stop it? Not a chance.

 

The long battle to bury gun rights has been undertaken in order to preserve unjust power over the people of this nation. It had nothing to do with saving lives or safety. It never did. If the powers that be want to hold on to any power, and they sure do, they will relent on the firearms to keep what power they have left for as long as they can.

 

I know many think that I give too much weight to these things, but I stand firm. Heller started a ball rolling that cannot be stopped. A genie has been let out of the bottle, so to speak, and it is only a matter of time, now.

 

Everything changes in a few short weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok there is so much here I could write a book on it. But here is my take on some of the things Dennis the dimwit spoke of:

 

“Two consequences are most likely from a ruling striking down Chicago's handgun ban. First, the decision will be used by the gun lobby, as well as gun criminals, to challenge a myriad of state and local gun laws. Second, with few exceptions, those challenges will fail. We can say this with some confidence for several reasons.”

 

Yes, State groups and the NRA will challenge other laws that violate the letter and spirit of Heller and McDonald. As we have seen, criminal defense attorneys will make half assed attempts at using these to try and get their clients off. Ray Charles could see this one coming.

 

 

“First, it is important to keep in mind the nature and scope of the right that would be applied to states and localities. In the words of Justice Scalia's majority opinion, the Second Amendment guarantees "the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home."

 

That wasn’t what Heller said – HELD. A holding is the finding, the core of what is allowed or not allowed. The rest as they say is dicta a description, but an informative description of how they get there. The FIRST holding in Heller was:

 

“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a

 

firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for

 

traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

 

They said ‘such as’ it is NOT limited to the home as the Brady Bunch and their mouth piece would have you believe. And It was not just self defense it was one of many reasons but a core reason at that.

 

Back to the outer limitis….

 

“The Heller decision confers no rights on those who have violated the law or acted irresponsibly. In addition, the Heller right applies only to self-defense in the home, not to carrying guns in public.”

 

Wrong Wrong Wrong. Heller listed kinds of people that could be barred such as felons and the mentally ill. Not an exhaustive list but a narrow list. Not shop lifters. Not homeless people. And as We have shown above it was NOT limited to the self defense or the home – ‘and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes’ Again self defense was a core issue in Heller, but not the only one. You could have a gun as a matter of property. A piece of property that is protected by the Constitution. And just have it for any lawful purpose.

 

 

“Second, the Heller majority went out of its way to make clear that strong gun regulation short of a handgun ban would still be permissible, regardless of the new right to be armed.”

 

NFW. This is delusional. What you or I consider reasonable is far from the things they consider reasonable as defined by their love for the new DC regulations. Most people would not find 4 or 5 trips to the police department, fingerprints, testing, ballistics and $500 in fees reasonable.

 

In Murdock v. Pennsylvania, the Court said;

 

“It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant [319 U.S. 105, 113] if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax – a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution. Thus, it may not exact a license tax for the privilege of carrying on interstate commerce (McGoldrick v. Berwind-White Co., 309 U.S. 33, 56-58, 60 S.Ct. 388, 397, 398, 128 A.L.R. 876), although it may tax the property used in, or the income derived from, that commerce, so long as those taxes are not discriminatory. Id., 309 U.S. at page 47, 60 S.Ct. at page 392, 128 A.L.R. 876 and cases cited. A license tax applied to activities guaranteed by the First Amendment would have the same destructive effect. It is true that the First Amendment, like the commerce clause, draws no distinction between license taxes, fixed sum taxes, and other kinds of taxes. But that is no reason why we should shut our eyes to the nature of the tax and its destructive influence. The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down. Lovell v. Griffin,” Emphasis added.

 

If the Court follows its own logic and precedent, than a lot of this nonsense spewed by the Brady bunch is mere wishful thinking. In Heller the Court compared the right to bear arms at least 4 or 5 times to the First Amendment. We should take solace in that and look to use those precedents to buttrice Heller and McDonald.

 

Now back to their alternative reality…..

 

“According to Justice Scalia, the Second Amendment right is not "to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Instead, the Court said, "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt" on several broad categories of gun laws, which the Court said remain "presumptively lawful."

 

Here they actually get part of it right. We have never claimed that it is unlimited. And certain broad categories of regulations such as the ban on felons and the mentally ill would be valid on their face. I personally like Pat Buchan’s approach of we’ll regulate it when you have to tow it with a jeep, but I don’t think that’s realistic. But then they always bite off more than they can chew;

 

“Those categories, which the Court said did "not purport to be exhaustive," include laws imposing conditions on the sale of guns (which could include background checks, licensing, registration, etc.),”

 

Hold it there Denny, the Court did not endorse nor support endless schemes to deny the right to own a firearm as we have shown before. Licensing may be permissible as it was not in the Heller complaint, and the closing of the case said that;

 

“Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.”

 

 

They didn’t say the DC licensing scheme or one intended to dissuade people from exercising their rights – as you advocate for. So quit trying to stretch what the Court said and what you wish for.

 

Now back to our regularly scheduled demented gun hating position….

 

“bans on dangerous and unusual weapons (which could include machine guns and assault weapons),”

 

The Court said that if they took Miller, the way you wanted them to, then the ban on machineguns might be unconstitutional and didn’t think you wanted to go there. But here you go again trying to connect semi-autos to machineguns. There is a difference. And your support of the McCarthy style bans will be the downfall of your position. Remember where the Court said;

 

“Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the

 

founding.” Pg 8 in case you missed it.

 

 

 

 

And notice, maybe it was a slip of the keyboard, you admitted WHICH COULD translated you hope and wish for. Lest I digress back to the drivel.

 

“and prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons. Heller's assurance that prohibiting concealed weapons remains "presumptively lawful" further suggests that extending the Heller right to the states would pose no threat to police tactics against illegal guns on the streets.”

 

Heller talked about two things with concealed carry laws. One; at the time most places that banned concealed carry did so because they thought it was not how a proper gentleman carried his pistol, AND open carry was permissible. That was described in State v. Reida case cited in Heller;

 

“But the court say that it is a matter which will not admit of legislative regulation, and in order to test the correctness of its opinion, supposes one Legislature to prohibit the bearing arms secretly, and a subsequent Legislature to enact a law against bearing them openly; and then asks the question, whether the first, or last enactment would be unconstitutional. Under the provision of our constitution, we incline to the opinion that the Legislature cannot inhibit the citizen from bearing arms openly, because it authorizes him to bear them for the purposes of defending himself and the State, and it is only when carried openly, that they can be efficiently used for defence.

 

In respect to the two prohibitory enactments supposed by the court of Appeals of Kentucky, we should be disposed to think, if either one, when standing alone, would be constitutional, that the last would be regarded as an expression of the will of the Legislature when enacted, and as it could not operate in harmony with the first, would by implication, repeal it. This view, we think, accords with the decision of the supreme court of the United States, in Sturges v. Crowninshield”

 

 

 

 

Second that the banning of the carrying of guns in “sensitive places” was reasonable. Looking at the list in Heller, it included schools or government buildings. That is a short list and most of the places that the Brady Bunch want off limits would not pass muster as sensitive places. Or do the overly sensitive feelings of their handwringing members matter. For McDonald to succeed we need only gain incorporation. If we get a buttricing of Heller as to keep or carry incase of confrontation or protecting modern firearms or any of the other good dicta in the decision it is a double or triple for us. If we get a standard of review of strict scrutiny, it’s a grand slam.

 

They are worried, very worried and no amount of spinning is going to hide that or the fact that they are playing a very defensive game these days

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a lot of what he writes is true.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that Daley will copy and push through every single restriction that the District of Columbia enacted after Heller.

 

What remains to be seen though, is the reaction of the residents of Chicago and to a lesser extent of the residents of Illinois.

 

I am hoping that a decision in our favor in MacDonald will force the politicians to actually respond to what the majority of citizens of Illinois actually want, that is, gun laws equal to what is available in the rest of the country.

 

A favorable ruling in MacDonald just means that a battle has been won but winning the war to get a "shall issue" concealed carry law in Illinois will still be a long way off.

 

Illinois Carry, the ISRA , Town Hall meetings and the NRA are still the only weapons we currently have in our aresenal and they need constant support

 

I completely agree with you. Dick Daley is Chicago's ruler. Dick will do whatever he can in his power to dick the people of Chicago around 24/7/365.

 

A favorable ruling in McDonald would be a primary battle victory for us, but the war would be far from over. A McDonald victory would give us solid teeth for future lawsuits.

 

I am truly not convinced that legally having a handgun in Chicago would be a pleasant experience. I'm sure those in Chicago will have to go through plenty of red tape just to have their handgun and then would have to go through such red tape once a year, every year.

 

By the way, the correct spelling is McDonald as in the restaurant, not MacDonald as in the song. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing that I'd like to add is how could Chicago and the rest of the nation lose this case? How could the Supreme Court rule that the Second Amendment applies to only one city, a small federal enclave, while fifty states... an entire nation... it wouldn't apply? The Second Amendment and the constitution as a whole was written for an entire nation, not just for one little city. Am I right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing that I'd like to add is how could Chicago and the rest of the nation lose this case? How could the Supreme Court rule that the Second Amendment applies to only one city, a small federal enclave, while fifty states... an entire nation... it wouldn't apply? The Second Amendment and the constitution as a whole was written for an entire nation, not just for one little city. Am I right?

 

You are right. Most people think the outcome is a foregone conclusion. Some of the contours of the right are up in the air, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

anyone remember the exact date this will happen this month on the supreme court ruling?

 

Whenever the Justices choose to release the opinion. Someone very close to the case has said that the lawyers expect it to be one of the last opinions to be released. According to the calendar HERE, that would be the last Monday in June. In reality, it could be ANY Monday in June.

 

We'll just have to wait and see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

anyone remember the exact date this will happen this month on the supreme court ruling?

 

Whenever the Justices choose to release the opinion. Someone very close to the case has said that the lawyers expect it to be one of the last opinions to be released. According to the calendar HERE, that would be the last Monday in June. In reality, it could be ANY Monday in June.

 

We'll just have to wait and see.

 

There's only 4 left! It ain't 26 days, it's 4 Mondays!;)

 

:woohoo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tic Toc Tic Toc Tic Toc.

 

I am hoping Thomas Writes the majority opinion. Part me thinks Sotomayor will write a dissent (we all know Ginsburg won't be able to stand down and will write a stand alone dissent if she has to) but I reserve the notion that Sotomayor just might join the majority in this case. Just think of the PR for Obama......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...