Jump to content

Viramontes v. Cook County - SAF challenges Cook Co. Weapon ban


POAT54

Recommended Posts

On 10/18/2022 at 1:24 AM, Euler said:

I'm pretty sure neither side is open to that kind of compromise.

 

Post Bruen the time for 'compromise' is now entirely over, it's time for the courts to fully enforce the protections of the 2nd!  A judge should not even be asking or offering a compromise on a right, that to me shows the judge know how they must rule and are attemptiong to weasel out of that ruling, and that is deplorable in itself!

Edited by Flynn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/22/2022 at 2:38 PM, Flynn said:

 

Post Bruen the time for 'compromise' is now entirely over, it's time for the courts to fully enforce the protections of the 2nd!  A judge should not even be asking or offering a compromise on a right, that to me shows the judge know how they must rule and are attemptiong to weasel out of that ruling, and that is deplorable in itself!

I was thinking about this yesterday: Why ask the parties to settle when neither party would agree to it? It makes me wonder if the judge knows the AWB is unconstitutional, really doesn't want to strike it down, and is hoping beyond hope that there's another way.

 

There isn't, of course, and she's gonna have to do her job. But that's my take on the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/29/2022 at 12:45 PM, Euler said:

 

Because every case should seek settlement instead of judgement. The judge would be derelict not to ask.

But have we seen this before in a 2A case? This request seemed a bit out of the blue, and perhaps a bit naive if anyone honestly believes Cook County would ever settle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/29/2022 at 12:45 PM, Euler said:

 

Because every case should seek settlement instead of judgement. The judge would be derelict not to ask.

 

I would argue when it's a 'civil right' being challenged, proposing a settlement that likely still infringes on others but the involved parties may accetp is the derelict option vs enforcing the right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/29/2022 at 3:00 PM, Euler said:

 

That's on the litigants, not the judge.

 

Sorry but I beg to differ that a judge should allow a civil rights violation to continue because an isolated plantiff settles, happens or not, procedure or not, that is part of what is wrong with our judicial system, abuses of civil rights are allowed to continue due to quirks like settlements that don't set precedent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/29/2022 at 6:20 PM, Flynn said:

Sorry but I beg to differ that a judge should allow a civil rights violation to continue because an isolated plantiff settles, happens or not, procedure or not, that is part of what is wrong with our judicial system, abuses of civil rights are allowed to continue due to quirks like settlements that don't set precedent.

 

For a judge to declare a civil rights violation proactively is the definition of an activist judge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

On December 29, the judge ordered the plaintiffs to respond by January 6 to the motion to combine Highland Park's case with this one.

 

On January 6, both the plaintiffs for this case (Viramontes et al.) and the plaintiffs for the Highland Park case (Goldman et al.) responded. (I haven't read the responses.) The reply from the defendants (both cases) is due January 13.

 

Edited by Euler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reply states that they do not object to combining the cases but it seems impractical to since the cases are at such different phases. If they are combined the Highland Park case cannot be allowed to slow the existing case. Basically, the plaintiffs don't object if it results in a summary judgement in their favor on both cases. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

On February 1, defendants asked for more time to file dispositive motions.

 

On February 3, the parties agreed that defendants would respond to the motion to stay by February 15 and that the plaintiffs would reply to the response by February 22. The deadline for defendants to file dispositive motions is set to 14 days after the court rules on a stay. A hearing on the motion to stay is scheduled for March 8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Because of Naperville, March 8th hearing scheduled in VIRAMONTES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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