Jump to content

Shepard v. Madigan - Orals - 10/3/2013


skinnyb82

Recommended Posts

Judge Posner sounds more like an attorney arguing his case than an impartial judge hearing a case.

 

Be happy you actually went to work today...as in earned money instead of jaw dropped within 15 seconds of orals beginning.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

That's what it sounds like. It almost sounds like Judge Posner is regretting the opinion he wrote last December.

 

As irritating as that was to hear, the brief moments of explanation that leaked through the berating of Mr. Thompson seemed to be of a reasonable origin. Agree or not, he cited precedent. Perhaps we have conditioned ourselves to believe that the original time constraints set forth in the stay meant more than they really did. At the end of the day, we do have a carry law (and a state full of SA's that ain't none too fired up to prosecute an AUUW).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't agreeing with him Mr. Fife, just giving my opinion on what I believe he was TRYING to say.

 

Yeah, I know. I was just using your post as a segue for what I wanted to bring up.

 

Like, what about the Chicago female who is on the street instead of inside her Park Tower condominium? Does she have to take her chances for another 6 months to 5 years?

 

I don't think Posner cares. Poseur sounds better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't agreeing with him Mr. Fife, just giving my opinion on what I believe he was TRYING to say.

 

Yeah, I know. I was just using your post as a segue for what I wanted to bring up.

 

Like, what about the Chicago female who is on the street instead of inside her Park Tower condominium? Does she have to take her chances for another 6 months to 5 years?

 

I don't think Posner cares. Poseur sounds better.

If he wants job security by dealing with a lawsuit for each unconstitutional act or law than by all means lets file a seperate lawsuits for each unconstitutional provision of the law as well as one for each violation of it by the state. I will list some examples

1. Public transportation ban

2. Public park ban

3. ISP missing deadline for instructor and curriculum by almost a month.

4. ISP being unable to certify out of state instructors including many off duty militar

5. Citizens ages 18-20 being unable exercise the right to carry for up to 3 years

6. Citizens ages 18-20 not being allowed the right to own a handgun in IL

7. 1983 lawsuit citing the delays in FOID as a civil rights violation

8. 1983 lawsuit citing the delays in CCW implementation as a civil rights violation

9. Shepard appeal to scotus citing due process violation by not allowing our side their alloted time during oral arguements.

10. All the above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

okay, I listened and while I didn't like Posner's questioning I have to say, I get what he's saying. I don't like it but I get it.

 

 

The ILSC ruled in line with the Posner panel in striking down the AUUW statue (again) but specifically said they didn't address the "new" law created when the FCCA was passed.

 

In other words, instead of viewing the FCCA as an exception to the existing law the courts are taking the view that the FCCA created a new law, although substantially similar to the old law, it is in the view of the ILSC and Posner now it seems, a NEW law.

 

So from that what I understand Posner to be saying is we've gotten a new law, one that allows concealed carry which was what the Shepard case was about all along. If we are unhappy with it we need to file a NEW lawsuit challenging the NEW law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by Molly B., October 7, 2013 at 06:55 PM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., October 7, 2013 at 06:55 PM - No reason given

I wasn't agreeing with him Mr. Fife, just giving my opinion on what I believe he was TRYING to say.

 

Yeah, I know. I was just using your post as a segue for what I wanted to bring up.

 

Like, what about the Chicago female who is on the street instead of inside her Park Tower condominium? Does she have to take her chances for another 6 months to 5 years?

 

I don't think Posner cares. Poseur sounds better.

Got it
Link to comment

The problem is that, by the time the takes it for a suit to even be ruled on by a district much less appellate court is that permits will be issued prior to an appeal even being certified. It's just easier to let this crap run its course and refocus. If they have not granted full relief in 50 years then it is of no consequence as the Court in Brown never said "do it by...." they just said do it. Remember there's still Moore and the state will try arguing that full relief has been obtained...well except for attorneys' fees which CA7 had told Chicago to not try and skirt since, post-McDonald, the City had tried to argue that it didn't have to pay because the defective law had been remedied. Good luck weaseling your way outta that one. Berlow said the laws are substantially different...I fail to see how they are but the jurists see it differently. I don't agree that Mary has obtained relief as per a segregation-era SCOTUS ruling that, had relief not (according to the senior judge) been granted even 50 years later or 2004, maybe Brown would not have been considered moot had the Court known that it would take a lifetime to sorta kinda grant relief yet many schools are still segregated. That being said, however, I respect the Court and whatever opinion is issued and not just opinions that I likel

 

 

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our side should have reminded Poster (somehow) that apparently the State does not require out of state residents from legally carrying in their vehicles today - no training required. Double standards in the statute. At least give Illinois residents the same rights as out of staters.

 

That whole training discussion could have been mooted right there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, THANKS to Skinny for posting what went down and for all of the work you have done. I also want to thank all those that went today. It is obvious that Posner is not interested in letting someone speak during the time they get. If he could sit and listen without butting in, telling Mr. Thompson what he really means / wants etc. every 2 seconds he may have gotten to hear our side. I noticed his silence when the state had their turn. I do understand the courts view of this, " we gave you what you want and if you don't like the time frame or the way it's coming together file another lawsuit ". meanwhile they let us continue to be stepped on.

 

OK, we have to wait until Jan. and I don't think whatever the court writes will do much damage because the ISP promises to get it done and we can stay on the Reps to keep the ISP on schedule as much as possible, or sue if it comes to it. we still have the ccw bill as law. We should now focus on being a constant caller of our local Rep. demanding the ISP does what it promised and also focus on lifting the restrictions in the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I especially enjoyed Posner, with Williams sitting to his left, referring to Black people as "those people" when lecturing Thompson on the merits of Brown v. Board of Education. This is not about what's right as he's done a 180 on gun rights. Again, I could engage in hyperbole but I won't. Posner was Posner this morning. Those who held him out to be some kind of God...surprise! And you only got half of the experience by listening to that mp3. The other half was the visual experience of him belittling Shepard's counsel while Flaum and Williams basically just sat there with Flaum asking one question and Williams basically making a statement of belief, more or less. Then the entire panel remaining completely silent during the state's presentation. It was a disaster but this isn't the only card we can play by any means. Just look at how this state and its municipalities screws with us. Play "lawsuit roulette," the house rarely wins at that game.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If nothing else, it no doubt brought in some funds.

 

There is an old saying about "not winning them all".

 

I wonder if Posner actually wants another lawsuit. It seems like he is almost goading the plaintiffs into it.

 

At some point we are going to have to start challenging it anyway. Might as well file the lawsuit now and get it going ASAP. No reason to wait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As we move more and more into a state controlled thugocracy, expect more of the same, and not just on the issue of guns.

 

My entire life, I have loved a system of law that no longer exists. Our system, as created, only works within a framework of morality. What happened to Mary Sheppard and her co-worker is morally repugnant,but that didn't matter. It didn't matter, because in good faith, we sought relief from people who value the art of law, more than it's morality. To achieve their desired ends, they have subverted the letter of the law, for case law, which provides the excuse of being able to cite how the last weasle screwed you. Once precedent is given more weight than what the law actually says, it's too late. Corruption never gives back the power it has usurped.

 

The vision of the framers was brilliant, but naive.

 

The courts may still have future use in civil matters, divorce, inheritance, and criminal code matters. Note that I did NOT include property...that is being jealously eyed by the state, and their successes in the courts regarding the theft of property is legion.

 

It's a sorry state of affairs, when the best relief offered is that the pain will stop "someday".

 

The next phase in Amerikan Justice...sharia tribunals in Spanish?

 

Colonel....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by Molly B., October 7, 2013 at 06:55 PM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., October 7, 2013 at 06:55 PM - No reason given

The problem is that, by the time the takes it for a suit to even be ruled on by a district much less appellate court is that permits will be issued prior to an appeal even being certified. It's just easier to let this crap run its course and refocus. If they have not granted full relief in 50 years then it is of no consequence as the Court in Brown never said "do it by...." they just said do it. Remember there's still Moore and the state will try arguing that full relief has been obtained...well except for attorneys' fees which CA7 had told Chicago to not try and skirt since, post-McDonald, the City had tried to argue that it didn't have to pay because the defective law had been remedied. Good luck weaseling your way outta that one. Berlow said the laws are substantially different...I fail to see how they are but the jurists see it differently. I don't agree that Mary has obtained relief as per a segregation-era SCOTUS ruling that, had relief not (according to the senior judge) been granted even 50 years later or 2004, maybe Brown would not have been considered moot had the Court known that it would take a lifetime to sorta kinda grant relief yet many schools are still segregated. That being said, however, I respect the Court and whatever opinion is issued and not just opinions that I like which, unlike others here (see below).

 

@DoYouFeelLucky, DO NOT make a thinly veiled, implicit startement Judge Posner is owned by father and daughter Madigan. It is much simpler than that. Although I will not engage in wild hyperbole, I suspect the reasoning behind Judge Posner's behavior today is MUCH simpler than bribery. Do you have evidence showing that Posner is on the take? Anything at all? I mean besides not being a fan of his since he berated appellants this morning? I don't. Do you recall McDonald? How about any other panel he's been drawn to sit on that has dealt with an issue that is gun-related? I doubt it.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

 

It was a simple statement based in the reality that there has been ample time passed for a number of factions to lobby the judge and sway his opinion. It is IL, is it not? No thin veil, although I will pass on your confirmation that he is on the take. Obviously based on the fact that you immediately went there you know something that wasn't even a part of my thought process.

Link to comment

Not sure why they even heard it, if this was the point. Why not just not accept their appeal and let the moot ruling stand?

 

This is why the legal system here confounds so many in this country. I mean if you are a judge and believe that they lower courts ruled properly (and not just properly, but so properly you dont let the lawyer speak) why even take the appeal. Very strange. Totally sounds like the mind was already made up, why even bother?

This was my thought during the whole ordeal. Posner said that just having a FOID affords no training to carry a firearm. I say it's a Constitutional right,but for the sake of argument,let's say Posner has a point. When people complete said training,which is available now,why should they have to wait till January just to apply? THEN the ISP can take 90 more days to deny you of a basic human right to self defense.This is what that arrogant cuss filter person isn't getting through his thick skull.Maybe if he had actually LISTENED to what Thompson was trying to tell him instead of just blowing him off,he might have understood. :headbang1:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That audio was........brutal.Posner sounded p***** to be there in the first place. Posner knew NOTHING about the law the ILGA passed in July. Contrary to what everyone thinks on this board, he has not followed how the law has been crafted and administered. He could care less. All he cared about is that a law was rewritten and that's it. He sounded like an anti at times. I feel bad for Thompson. No lawyer should have to go thru the beating he did.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posner's concerns over training hold water only if that same argument and standard can be applied to ANY OTHER ENUMERATED RIGHT.

 

This incremental loss of freedom is the result of decades of "compromise" against an antagonist with nothing on the table to lose, and has never ceded ANYTHING, but instead relentlessly seeks more.

 

Compromise is a filthy, cowardly word that has been twisted into the guise of something honorable and intelligent, instead of the tool of the invertebrate that it is.

 

Colonel....

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...