Jump to content


Photo

Kolbe et al v. Hogan (CA4 En Banc)


  • Please log in to reply
92 replies to this topic

#91 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,379 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 29 November 2017 - 06:16 AM

I agree with Skinny, I think this was more strategic.

Thing is that's just a wild guess based on prior denials for cases that (I would like to think that) the Court would normally take. Problem is, we don't even know if there were four votes to grant. Assume (based on Caetano) that Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch on board. Roberts may not want this stuff in "his" Supreme Court as he has voted based on what is politically expedient, played politics with our rights, which makes him the worst kind of judge. Alternatively, assuming Roberts would be the fourth vote, then we get into the strategy portion because of Kennedy and we all know how he's a toss-up.

What really leaves me scratching my head is that the four liberal justices should WANT to take a case like this, especially if they know (and they do know) it'll set bad precedent for us. And if Kennedy were a dependable vote for their "side" then I'd think that they'd grant cert, affirm CA4, and say "Screw you, America." So I guess that, assuming Roberts is a dependable vote for the petitioner, that Kennedy is truly the wildcard and NO ONE knows where he sits and they balked again, waiting for a better Court composition (hopefully) when Kennedy retires after this term. Trump has some incredible jurists on tap to fill as many seats on the Supreme Court bench as there are vacancies.

I love how we have to play this "if, then, else" game with SCOTUS because none of us have any idea nor will we ever have any idea what happened in that conference or what discussions preceded the conference. All I have to say is Justice Kennedy, please retire for the sake of the Republic.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

Edited by skinnyb82, 29 November 2017 - 06:17 AM.

NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#92 Plinkermostly

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 598 posts
  • Joined: 20-April 13

Posted 29 November 2017 - 06:51 AM

It still escapes me.  I can see where 'they' want to interpret 'keep and bear' (don't agree just see) -- but 'shall not be infringed' seems so simple and straight forward.  Like the Founding Fathers really wanted to make a point to ensure that 'they' would never have a chance to destroy our fundamental right that guards all the others.  



#93 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,379 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 29 November 2017 - 07:52 AM

It still escapes me.  I can see where 'they' want to interpret 'keep and bear' (don't agree just see) -- but 'shall not be infringed' seems so simple and straight forward.  Like the Founding Fathers really wanted to make a point to ensure that 'they' would never have a chance to destroy our fundamental right that guards all the others.  


Well at least you (we all) have something in common with Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch. The logic and reasoning skills required to come to that conclusion. So we're thinking on par with lawyers educated at the finest law schools in the nation.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

Edited by skinnyb82, 29 November 2017 - 07:53 AM.

NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users