840 replies to this topic

[Drylok]

Ty it's the 7th in Chicago and the whole thing is rigged. Look for them to hear the case, wait until the last possible moment to issue an opinion and then punt in the decision to SCOTUS in hopes that Obama will be re-elected and Kennedy has a heart attack or retires before SCOTUS hears it. That way they can flip the court 5-4 their way before having to make yet again another "landmark decision" on the 2nd amendment.

[abolt243]

TyGuy, on 04 June 2012 - 07:17 PM, said:

Do we expect them to hear and decide the case sequentially, or will it be interspersed with pther cases?

The decision will not be renedered on Friday.  Only oral arguments will be heard.  The court will then consider all oral arguements as well as all written briefs that have been filed by both sides as well as "friends" of both sides (amici briefs).  Speculation is that the decision will be announced sometime prior to Aug 8, the last scheduled day of this session of court.

AB

[ishmo]

TyGuy, on 04 June 2012 - 07:17 PM, said:

Do we expect them to hear and decide the case sequentially, or will it be interspersed with pther cases?

Here's the link to the schedule 7th Week of the April, 2012 Session June 4-8, 2012
Looks like Shepard/Moore will be heard together.

[Mr. Fife]

GarandFan, on 04 June 2012 - 03:16 PM, said:

Not in real time.

You can get audio of oral arguments here:  http://www.ca7.uscou...s.fwx?dname=arg

However, I don't know the time interval between the actual arguments, and the upload of the audio.  I would guess at least a few days.  Someone probably knows that ...

Unless it being on Friday makes a difference, I would guess they would be ready the same day. All the oral arguments from today have already been uploaded.

[snubjob]

Drylok, on 04 June 2012 - 07:22 PM, said:

Ty it's the 7th in Chicago and the whole thing is rigged. Look for them to hear the case, wait until the last possible moment to issue an opinion and then punt in the decision to SCOTUS in hopes that Obama will be re-elected and Kennedy has a heart attack or retires before SCOTUS hears it. That way they can flip the court 5-4 their way before having to make yet again another "landmark decision" on the 2nd amendment.

Wish i could see it another way Drylok, but i think you have stated exactly how it will take place.  I still say that this has been the plan all along.  Those that think that no one has an influence on the courts, yes even federal courts, are sadly mistaken.  This is far too important for the machine to let slide.  And you better believe that they are going to get "support" from very high places.

[GarandFan]

Drylok, on 04 June 2012 - 07:22 PM, said:

Ty it's the 7th in Chicago and the whole thing is rigged. Look for them to hear the case, wait until the last possible moment to issue an opinion and then punt in the decision to SCOTUS in hopes that Obama will be re-elected and Kennedy has a heart attack or retires before SCOTUS hears it. That way they can flip the court 5-4 their way before having to make yet again another "landmark decision" on the 2nd amendment.

With all due respect to you, my friend, the "judicial conspiracy theories" and "the court is rigged" statements are getting a mite weary.  I suspect that if you carefully and systematically break those beliefs of yours down, you will find the basis of them largely (and merely) because you want to believe it is so.

So relax a little, please.  Courts render poor decisions and they render great decisions.  Having reasonable suspicions about our republic and its institutions is healthy.  But having a dearth of reasonable confidence in them is quite unhealthy.

And then ... there are a few around here who seem to have tumbled headlong down the rabbit-hole.

[TyGuy]

But a decision WILL be handed down by August 8th?

[Gray Peterson]

Drylok, on 04 June 2012 - 07:22 PM, said:

Ty it's the 7th in Chicago and the whole thing is rigged. Look for them to hear the case, wait until the last possible moment to issue an opinion and then punt in the decision to SCOTUS in hopes that Obama will be re-elected and Kennedy has a heart attack or retires before SCOTUS hears it. That way they can flip the court 5-4 their way before having to make yet again another "landmark decision" on the 2nd amendment.

You have zero idea of what you're talking about.  Gun owners should be more aware of how they are perceived in a public setting, acting as if there are conspiracies when they have zero proof of that with the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals is somehow rigged.  Read lower to my response to TyGuy.

TyGuy, on 04 June 2012 - 09:10 PM, said:

But a decision WILL be handed down by August 8th?

Yes.  August 8th is the last day of the session of this court, and Chief Judge Easterbrook denied a month long extension.

Order re: Motions to consolidate and extend time. The motions to consolidate are DENIED. Appellees do not need a formal order of consolidation in order to file one brief addressing two appeals. They may file one brief, or two, at their option. The motions for an extension of time is GRANTED, but only until May 9, 2012 (in both appeals). This should allow enough time to prepare a single brief covering the two cases. Appellees previously told the court that the two suits are functionally identical. There is accordingly no need for time beyond the 30-day extension already granted, and this one-week increment. The court’s last regular sitting of the current term is June 8, 2012. If the court were to delay the appellees’ briefs until June 1 or June 11 (the alternate dates appellees propose), that would postpone oral argument until next September, an unnecessary delay. Appellees must file their brief (or briefs) in both cases by May 9, and appellants their reply briefs by May 23. That will permit oral argument the last week of May or the first full week of  June.

Tell me, does that seem like a court will will "hold on" to the case just to screw us?

Enough with the Tinfoil Hat BS.

Edited by Gray Peterson, 05 June 2012 - 02:27 AM.

[Sigma]

be nice if we got the same Judges we had in Ezell

[NakPPI]

Just a heads up for those planning on attending the arguments--it's a courtroom so dress like you're going to church, not a cubs game.

[colt-45]

i don't get what some on here are saying a ruling may be punt. what is punt? to me it's something you do with a football.

[Bud]

The Appellate could send it back to the Circuit to re-think their decision.

I am hoping that the Appelaate says both plantiffs are absolutely right, issues an imediate permanent injunction and everyone carries guns open or concealed in Illinois forever.

But I did a LOT of drugs when I was younger

[GarandFan]

Appellate could send it back down to the district court.  Appellate and Circuit are the same level of federal court, intermediate between District and Supreme.  Technically, the one in Chicago is called "Seventh Circuit court of Appeals" (hence it is called both Circuit court and Appellate court).

[colt-45]

O. ok i see where they get it now. (punt)

[Tvandermyde]

My term punt means that the Court may agree in part, but say they need more direction from SCOTUS and rule against us citing lack of clear direction from on high. Thus dumping it in their lap.

[sirflyguy]

Tvandermyde, on 06 June 2012 - 09:44 PM, said:

My term punt means that the Court may agree in part, but say they need more direction from SCOTUS and rule against us citing lack of clear direction from on high. Thus dumping it in their lap.

I bet this is what happens.  I hope not, but it is just my prediction.

[bob]

Tvandermyde, on 06 June 2012 - 09:44 PM, said:

My term punt means that the Court may agree in part, but say they need more direction from SCOTUS and rule against us citing lack of clear direction from on high. Thus dumping it in their lap.

Which would seem to be good for us. The faster we get to SCOTUS the better. Nothing else really matters.

[frankw438]

NakPPI, on 06 June 2012 - 07:07 PM, said:

Just a heads up for those planning on attending the arguments--it's a courtroom so dress like you're going to church, not a cubs game.

What's the rule/procedure on cell phones. Some District Courts won't even allow your phone in the the building, I've heard.  What are the local rules for 7th CA?

-- Frank


PS- I don't go to church or Cubs games, so I can go au naturel?

[colt-45]

Tvandermyde, on 06 June 2012 - 09:44 PM, said:

My term punt means that the Court may agree in part, but say they need more direction from SCOTUS and rule against us citing lack of clear direction from on high. Thus dumping it in their lap.

ok that makes more since to me. thanks Todd.

[NakPPI]

I've never had an issue with cell phones in the Chicago area courts, just make sure it's turned off.

Edited by NakPPI, 07 June 2012 - 10:33 AM.

[frankw438]

NakPPI, on 07 June 2012 - 10:31 AM, said:

I've never had an issue with cell phones in the Chicago area courts, just make sure it's turned off.

Thanks. Maybe that particular rule is just for CDIL.

[frankw438]

I just called the clerk's office, and they confirmed that it is all right to have your cellphone in the courtroom as long as it is off. I think the total ban was alocal rule for US District Courts in Central IL.

[billzfx4]

colt-45, on 06 June 2012 - 07:27 PM, said:

i don't get what some on here are saying a ruling may be punt. what is punt? to me it's something you do with a football.

Punt is just a technical term for the court playing "hot potato" with the case.

[05FLHT]

Tvandermyde, on 06 June 2012 - 09:44 PM, said:

My term punt means that the Court may agree in part, but say they need more direction from SCOTUS and rule against us citing lack of clear direction from on high. Thus dumping it in their lap.

It would simply mean the 7th is not doing its job. The SCOTUS is NOT supposed to be a court of first impression.

The 7th stepped clear in front of the issue here and has put the games being played aside. Good or bad, it really looks like they want to make a decision.

[GarandFan]

SPECIAL REQUEST ...

So, I am down here in the boonies, and of course can't attend the oral arguments tomorrow.  I for one would greatly appreciate summaries or perspectives from any of you who might be attending!  That would be great if you are willing!

I will of course listen to the argument audio when it is available, but there are various nuances that one misses by not seeing the judges ask their questions, interact with the attorneys, use body language and facial expressions, etc.

I do agree with those (05FLHT especially) who have pointed out that the court has put itself "out in front" of this issue.  While it is reasonable to presume they may indeed punt the big question up to the Supreme Court, we also may be surprised with how they interact during arguments (and with how they ultimately rule).  They certainly have been briefed well on this issue ... so any "wussed out" ruling won't be for a lack of having the information!

Thanks in advance!

[dmefford]

After the solid remarks made by the 7th in the Ezzel case, and the research and subsequent decisions in the Maryland and North Carolina cases, I think there is a small body of accumulating favorable (to us) decisions that may assist in the 7th in going for a solid constitutional argument that Illinois law is unconstitutional.  Which, of course, it is...

My gut feelings have been known to be unreliable .  So read with a grain of salt...  It might be wishful thinkin'.

Regards, Drd

[Federal Farmer]

GarandFan, on 07 June 2012 - 07:18 PM, said:

SPECIAL REQUEST ...

So, I am down here in the boonies, and of course can't attend the oral arguments tomorrow.  I for one would greatly appreciate summaries or perspectives from any of you who might be attending!  That would be great if you are willing!

I will of course listen to the argument audio when it is available, but there are various nuances that one misses by not seeing the judges ask their questions, interact with the attorneys, use body language and facial expressions, etc.

I do agree with those (05FLHT especially) who have pointed out that the court has put itself "out in front" of this issue.  While it is reasonable to presume they may indeed punt the big question up to the Supreme Court, we also may be surprised with how they interact during arguments (and with how they ultimately rule).  They certainly have been briefed well on this issue ... so any "wussed out" ruling won't be for a lack of having the information!

Thanks in advance!

I won't be there but Colleen is attending.  I forwarded your request and she wants you to know 2 things:  1.  She brought her glasses, 2. She's trained in reading micro-expressions.

[Howard Roark]

Federal Farmer, on 08 June 2012 - 07:54 AM, said:

GarandFan, on 07 June 2012 - 07:18 PM, said:

SPECIAL REQUEST ...

So, I am down here in the boonies, and of course can't attend the oral arguments tomorrow.  I for one would greatly appreciate summaries or perspectives from any of you who might be attending!  That would be great if you are willing!

I will of course listen to the argument audio when it is available, but there are various nuances that one misses by not seeing the judges ask their questions, interact with the attorneys, use body language and facial expressions, etc.

I do agree with those (05FLHT especially) who have pointed out that the court has put itself "out in front" of this issue.  While it is reasonable to presume they may indeed punt the big question up to the Supreme Court, we also may be surprised with how they interact during arguments (and with how they ultimately rule).  They certainly have been briefed well on this issue ... so any "wussed out" ruling won't be for a lack of having the information!

Thanks in advance!

I won't be there but Colleen is attending.  I forwarded your request and she wants you to know 2 things:  1.  She brought her glasses, 2. She's trained in reading micro-expressions.

I was sitting next to Colleen.  She was wearing her glasses.  She had a good view of all the judges faces.   And their frowns.  :-s  

lolol

[bob]

05FLHT, on 07 June 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:

Tvandermyde, on 06 June 2012 - 09:44 PM, said:

My term punt means that the Court may agree in part, but say they need more direction from SCOTUS and rule against us citing lack of clear direction from on high. Thus dumping it in their lap.

It would simply mean the 7th is not doing its job. The SCOTUS is NOT supposed to be a court of first impression.

The 7th stepped clear in front of the issue here and has put the games being played aside. Good or bad, it really looks like they want to make a decision.

The judges certainly asked a lot of tough questions and seemed to focus more on how much can be banned and not whether the total ban is OK. But, who knows what that means when it comes to a decision. It seems to me the state's mouth piece did us a big favor though - he explicitly suggested that the ban is not consitutional under strict scrutiny, and seemed to be arguing against strict scrutiny as much as anything.

[TFC]

I was listening to the oral arguments again. Was the panel "signaling" to the plaintiffs to "advise" the defendants on what the CCW law "should" be?