Jump to content

MRE

Members
  • Posts

    154
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by MRE

  1. On 1/8/2024 at 11:18 AM, davel501 said:

     

    Again, this wasn't about second amendment. The corrupt Illinois machine was caught dead to rights and nobody cares. Not scotus and especially not the media. If you can't see the big picture of what is going on here then I feel sorry for you. 2a was not the headline in this case. That scotus didn't want to touch it for fear of their own behavior becoming part of the discussion should give us all pause. 


    See my first paragraph, and multiple posts by myself and others on this board as to why that’s exactly why they wouldn’t agree to hear those conflicts issues. It likely has nothing to do with this specific case, and everything to do with Justices themselves having to fight off similar type complaints. They don’t like to take on issues unless they absolutely need to. And when they can avoid an issue, they will. Not just on these issues, but on any issue. It’s not ideal, but it’s true.  Decisions on what cases they take don’t exist in a vacuum. 

  2. On 1/8/2024 at 10:58 AM, davel501 said:

     

    The corruption was undeniable and SCOTUS shrugged.

    Again, while it would be great if Justices looked at issues in a vacuum, without consideration of the current atmosphere and issues they have elsewhere, that’s just generally not how they work. Even if it’s a good argument, the chances of them taking your case are slim. Add in outside factors making it an issue they may not want to touch right now, and those odds become slim to none. 
     

    in terms of the Second Amendment arguments, it again doesn’t really come down to them disagreeing with the arguments, but more likely they don’t view this as the right case, all things considered, they want to use to rule on those arguments. 

  3. On 12/18/2023 at 10:27 AM, yurimodin said:

    and then if we lose in another district that will create conflicting precedents and SCOTUS will have to settle it anyway.


    Likely, but when I say it wouldn’t be good for Illinois, I mean in terms of the timeline it would take for that to occur. Instead of a possible 2024 Supreme Court decision, you might not be seeing a full hearing and decision until 2025 for the Illinois case. 
     

    vs if the Supreme Court is able to take up the Maryland case in 2024, it might be possible for a nationally binding decision to be issued prior to the 7th Circuit here issuing a decision on the merits for the cases here. 
     

    In the end, though, predicting anything like that is often just guess work. It’s frustrating, but true. 

  4. On 12/18/2023 at 9:09 AM, Matt B said:

    Bianchi. It’s been waiting over a year for an opinion after being heard by a three judge panel in the 4th circuit. There’s some speculation it was immediately pulled en banc and that’s been the delay. If that is true, and the en banc panel comes out with a decision then that’s the final judgement case that would go up to scotus.

    It was also one of the cases that was pending before the Supreme Court when Bruen was decided, and the Supremes vacated and remanded back to the 4th Circuit to re-do following Bruen. One thing that’s true of the Court, no matter which side is in the majority: they want the lower Courts to get it right first and not have to hear it. One thing that would be interesting, and not really good for Illinois, is if Maryland loses at the 4th Circuit, but decides not to appeal to the Supreme Court to prevent a ruling with National implications. 

  5. On 12/17/2023 at 12:22 PM, davel501 said:

     

    SCOTUS is concerned with making good precedent too. They likely want to do this once the right way and have no questions if the makeup of the court changes.


    I tend to agree with this. Just remember some history here: Thomas wrote a fairly extensive and sharp dissent when the Court denied cert in the Friedman case in 2015, which provided a precursor to what would eventually be his Bruen decision. In those two respective opinions, he lambasted lower Courts for getting Heller wrong…with one of the Judges that ire was aimed clearly being Easterbrook’s and the 7th’s decision in Friedman. So I have to think Thomas would like nothing more than to use Illinois and Easterbrook, after they’ve blatantly and intentionally ignored his opinion again, as the case and Judge the Court overturns to set this precedent. However, all that being said, there has not been a case specifically on point on this issue, so they want to get it right, which usually means a final merits appeal. That could mean Maryland becomes the case in 2024.

  6. Disappointing, but not surprising.

     

    On a side note, to be really blunt and honest: I wasn’t going to say this while it was still pending, but that brief, while the argument hit the bullet points, was not well written. By that I mean it read like it was written by a college student. (Example: Don’t overuse the word “literally” in a Supreme Court brief. Better still, don’t use it at all. It matters.).
     

    Maybe that’s just venting a little, but multiple attorneys I know winced a little when reading it. 
     

    Anywho, as has been repeatedly stated, these interlocutory attempts are always long shot attempts. More than one Justice who I’m confident will eventually side with us, are not fans of the shadow docket. It stinks in cases like this, but it’s true. 

  7. On 12/13/2023 at 11:54 AM, mauserme said:

    This is just my humble opinion, which is admittedly sometimes overly optimistic, but I think ISP may effectively be telling the legislature to shove this law that they won't enforce this law much as the sheriffs did.

     

     


    While that might be (probably is) the opinion of some (or many) Troopers, I can almost guarantee that is not the official position of the Agency. Remember who their boss is. 

  8. On 12/13/2023 at 8:00 AM, mab22 said:

    Wow, so this really highlights the executive branch really “making laws”, not just “some rules” here and there. 
    I doubt this is what is intended by the statute allowing this to occur. 

     


    Also, on this point, yes the executive branch using rule making authority to effectively creating new laws is a problem that’s been allowed to fester on both the Federal and State level for years. That authority may be curtailed somewhat next year by the Supreme Court if they undo existing Court precedent known as the Chevron Doctrine (that basically allows executive agencies broad rule making authority). I don’t think it’s clear if undoing that doctrine would effect both Federal and State agencies, or just the Federal agencies (since State agencies and legislative processes are a mostly creation of State constitutions). It could depend on the wording of any Supreme Court ruling.

  9. On 12/13/2023 at 8:00 AM, mab22 said:

    Wow, so this really highlights the executive branch really “making laws”, not just “some rules” here and there. 
    I doubt this is what is intended by the statute allowing this to occur. 

    It sounds like JCAR is pretty useless, in this matter, if the rules go into effect when published, and it goes into effect wether or not JCAR accepts them or objects.
    If that’s the case then JCAR is nothing more then a board that provides the members assigned on it extra income, not a stop gap, not really an oversight or authority that can stop anything. 
     

    Which should make the whole thing, at least the way Illinois is abusing it, unconstitutional by giving the executive branch sub parts “law making authority”, which is not in the Illinois constitution. 
     

     

     


    It’s always been an interesting question what would happen if JCAR, as a committee and not the entire General Assembly, would truly object to rules to the point of saying they can’t be adopted, going against a Governors office insisting they should be. By statute the General Assembly can veto the rules…but it would present an interesting constitutional question on separation of powers. But, that’s ultimately not going to happen here. The General Assembly isn’t going to stop rules, which are effectively the Governor setting out how he chooses to enforce the law (that he is tasked to do as Governor), when the Governor is of the same party and they both wanted this law.

  10. On 12/12/2023 at 10:06 PM, yurimodin said:

    from what I understand I think it goes into effect with the ISP emergency rules as written in the law (so springs, screws, parts, etc).....I think they are trying to punt to SCOTUS because they were not prepared for this day to finally come. Its like the Wiley Coyote finally catching the RoadRunner

     
    The Emergency Rules (as terrible and unclear as they are) legally went into effect when they were published, and will remain in effect until, I believe, February or until permanent rules are adopted (whichever is sooner). Or unless a Court halts them. ISP has a year from filing to adopt permanent rules (which are filed at the same time as the emergency rules), or they are withdrawn. That doesn’t change the fact that the statute is still the law, it just complicates how it could be enforced.

     

    JCAR typically utilizes one of three options during this part of the second notice period: issue an objection to the rules, wherein ISP would be asked to amend them; give recommendations, which ISP would need to respond to; or issue a certificate of no objection, after which ISP can formally adopt the rules. 

     

    It’s worth keeping in mind that these are not “JCAR’s rules”, they’re ISP rules. JCAR is the legislative panel charged by statute to review them. It’s the Agency that writes them and adopts them.  While I somewhat sympathize with the position ISP is in “attempting” to create clarity from ambiguous chaos, they aren’t innocent in this by any means in how long they waited to file their rules. They could’ve done so in the Spring if they wanted to. And by “They” I also mean their boss: Governor Pritzker. Make no mistake, it’s his office that ultimately controls when and what rules get published.  

  11. On 12/12/2023 at 2:15 PM, MRE said:


    Well the first domino of my predictions fell this afternoon, when JCAR took no action, including not issuing a  certificate of no objection. This makes it virtually impossible procedurally for the permanent rules to be adopted before Jan 1.

     

    This obviously bolsters the arguments this afternoon in the Southern District. We’ll see what happens. 


    Doesn’t sound to promising for any sort of injunction before Jan 1

  12. On 11/24/2023 at 8:38 AM, MRE said:


    That was at least part of the intent of Pritzker, Morgan, and Co. since the beginning.  They were well aware of the fact that a law like this was in direct contradiction to Bruen. They also knew the odds of it getting up to the Supremes before Jan 1, 2024 were slim. And they also knew that there was a good chance they would get a panel with Easterbrook (since he wrote the 2015 decision), that would ensure the 7th would slow it down. The Hail Mary throw on their end is that something happens to create a shift in the Supreme Court makeup by the time this issue does get a hearing there. That’s still TBD.

     

    Having said all that, I do see a slight possibility that a Preliminary Injunction holds up at the 7th. Not due to its 2A questions, but mainly due to Pritzker and ISP dragging their feet too much with the rules, filing them so late and writing them in such a confusing manner that there’s no possible way the confusing and ambiguous Emergency rules will be fairly clarified, finalized, and permanently adopted by Jan 1. I think there’s a very good chance McGlynn issues an injunction before Jan 1, and a small chance, but not totally out of the realm of possibility, that the 7th let’s it stand at least until final rules are adopted. 


    Well the first domino of my predictions fell this afternoon, when JCAR took no action, including not issuing a  certificate of no objection. This makes it virtually impossible procedurally for the permanent rules to be adopted before Jan 1.

     

    This obviously bolsters the arguments this afternoon in the Southern District. We’ll see what happens. 

  13. On 11/30/2023 at 9:55 AM, RANDY said:

    @MRE  You may be confusing the 7th C of A federal cases which are asking for en banc with the Caulkins ILSC case that is pending at Scotus.


    No, I don’t believe I am. This SCOTUS appeal filed yesterday is in relation to the 7th’s decision, where a request for En Banc hearing was made. If that request is still pending, I’m not optimistic of what SCOTUS will do with this. I hope I’m wrong, and they’ve had enough and decide to step in, I just fear it’s a long shot. Barret is supposedly one who is especially leery of interlocutory appeals. Maybe moreso when it’s one in which there is still a similar request pending for hearing at the appellate level. 

  14. I guess I’m in need of some clarification. Isn’t there a request for En Banc that’s still pending?  Has that already been denied? The Supremes tend to shy away from interlocutory appeals to begin with, and I’m not optimistic here if the other motion at the 7th is still pending. 
     

    I also could’ve completely missed the denial of the request for En Banc.

  15. On 11/22/2023 at 3:21 PM, ragsbo said:

    So what I am hearing is that there is NO WAY this crap gets shut down or thrown out before they can start locking folks up in January for not following their unconstitutional mandates. They get to drag their feet and keep screwing us over while playing ring around the rosie with every court they can find (especially those they have bought and paid for). Yeah, gotta rant a little.


    That was at least part of the intent of Pritzker, Morgan, and Co. since the beginning.  They were well aware of the fact that a law like this was in direct contradiction to Bruen. They also knew the odds of it getting up to the Supremes before Jan 1, 2024 were slim. And they also knew that there was a good chance they would get a panel with Easterbrook (since he wrote the 2015 decision), that would ensure the 7th would slow it down. The Hail Mary throw on their end is that something happens to create a shift in the Supreme Court makeup by the time this issue does get a hearing there. That’s still TBD.

     

    Having said all that, I do see a slight possibility that a Preliminary Injunction holds up at the 7th. Not due to its 2A questions, but mainly due to Pritzker and ISP dragging their feet too much with the rules, filing them so late and writing them in such a confusing manner that there’s no possible way the confusing and ambiguous Emergency rules will be fairly clarified, finalized, and permanently adopted by Jan 1. I think there’s a very good chance McGlynn issues an injunction before Jan 1, and a small chance, but not totally out of the realm of possibility, that the 7th let’s it stand at least until final rules are adopted. 

  16. On 11/15/2023 at 10:18 AM, steveTA84 said:

    The main point here is that this case/story has new life. Everyone should take advantage of that. I read the petition too. It’s pretty darn good 


    I’m not saying it’s a bad argument; I’m just saying be realistic in any expectations you might have. The Court refuses to hear hundreds of great arguments every year, for various reasons. And they want the who ethics issue at their doorstep to go away, which is why I’d be surprised if they took this case. They could, who knows. I’d just be surprised. 

  17. I would be very surprised if the Supremes take this case. It’s obviously possible, but ordinarily it’s a long shot…and with all of the national stories raising “ethical/conflicts concerns” involving Justices the last few months, I doubt this will be a road they want to travel down this year. Granted, I’m not saying those stories were legit, but the Court sometimes takes those types of things into account when choosing the right time to consider an issue. 

  18. On 11/14/2023 at 9:33 AM, davel501 said:

     

    I thought JCAR was just the rubber stamp on the ISP. My point was let's let the law be the law rather than letting them pretend it is something softer for the court cases then "align the rules closer to the law as written" after the legal proceedings.


    At its core, JCAR is simply a legislative branch committee with limited authority to review and “object” to the executive branch’s proposed rules. They tend to think they have more authority than they actually do. The process is many times just a lot of song and dance following the beat of required times for comments to be accepted. On its face it’s “bipartisan” but that means little when a tie vote is actually a losing vote. Any final, formal rebuke would need to come with a vote of the majority party. And the full legislature if it gets far enough. But when the Governor is of the same party as the legislative majority, that rarely happens. In the end it is 99% of the time a rubber stamp for the Agency. Unless and until a Court steps in.

  19. On 11/9/2023 at 10:41 PM, Flynn said:

     

    Nope, at least it wasn't challenged directly on 2nd challenge, it was lightly challenged on the commerce clause and equal protection, but not the 2nd...

     

    Prior to Heller the courts were unified in that the 2nd was a 2nd class right that the government could use basically any means end argument to infringe, Heller changed everything...


    Essentially this. And then look at the dissent from when the Supremes denied Cert in the 2015 Friedman case, as well as lower court opinions from current Supremes on the issue, and that is why many believe these bans are ripe to be picked after Bruen. 

  20. On 8/31/2023 at 11:54 PM, Flynn said:

     

    I agree that there is only a small percentage of devoted antis out there, but the real problem we face is how strong the public interest argument is to many more and how much they are willing to give up and sacrifice their rights over feelings and emotions...


    The clearest evidence of the greater public interest is the spike in gun ownership in 2020. And it wasn’t because of a sudden increase in people who wanted to go hunting with a shotgun. When the you-know-what hit the fan, the realization of the importance of exercising the fundamental right of self defense kicked in. 
     

    The problem going forward is the short term memory issue the public in general has, and how quickly many forget how they felt that summer. 

×
×
  • Create New...