Tvandermyde Posted January 4, 2023 at 07:22 PM Posted January 4, 2023 at 07:22 PM Can any of our legal beagles get this response for us to read ourselves?
Sol-Invictus Posted January 4, 2023 at 09:19 PM Posted January 4, 2023 at 09:19 PM The "judges" need to be imprisoned for sedition.
Flynn Posted January 4, 2023 at 10:27 PM Posted January 4, 2023 at 10:27 PM Why does NY even need a defense attorney when it appears the 2nd Circuit is under retainer by NY? I really, really hope the Supreme Court takes their gloves off and lets the lower courts know they are not the boss that gets to tell the Supreme Court how it is and what their job is...
John Q Public Posted January 4, 2023 at 10:31 PM Posted January 4, 2023 at 10:31 PM If you read back a ways, I called this very thing....
Dumak_from_arfcom Posted January 4, 2023 at 10:35 PM Posted January 4, 2023 at 10:35 PM LOL... got to love the tantrum-like responses from politicians and activist judges that are desperate to keep the status quo. Nothing apparently applies to the Bruen decision. Accessories... magazines... carry restrictions... none of those things are firearm related. LOL
Flynn Posted January 4, 2023 at 10:40 PM Posted January 4, 2023 at 10:40 PM On 1/4/2023 at 1:22 PM, Tvandermyde said: Can any of our legal beagles get this response for us to read ourselves? https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22A557/251278/20230103154502214_22A557 Br in Opposition.pdf
Flynn Posted January 4, 2023 at 10:52 PM Posted January 4, 2023 at 10:52 PM Here is the actual docket page to find future developments vs the direct link to the most recent document I posted above. https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22A557.html
Tvandermyde Posted January 5, 2023 at 12:31 AM Author Posted January 5, 2023 at 12:31 AM No I'm looking for the response from the 2nd circuit Court of Appeals, I thought the Court of Appeals sent something but maybe I'm mistaken
Flynn Posted January 5, 2023 at 01:19 AM Posted January 5, 2023 at 01:19 AM On 1/4/2023 at 6:31 PM, Tvandermyde said: No I'm looking for the response from the 2nd circuit Court of Appeals, I thought the Court of Appeals sent something but maybe I'm mistaken If you read over what I linked it touches on the same exact points in the same exact order as pointed out in the video, it would appear he was talking about NY's response, not a response from the 2nd itself...
Tvandermyde Posted January 5, 2023 at 03:29 AM Author Posted January 5, 2023 at 03:29 AM On 1/4/2023 at 7:19 PM, Flynn said: If you read over what I linked it touches on the same exact points in the same exact order as pointed out in the video, it would appear he was talking about NY's response, not a response from the 2nd itself... thanks, he made it sound like the Court itself gave a response
steveTA84 Posted January 5, 2023 at 04:24 AM Posted January 5, 2023 at 04:24 AM NY is bold LOL. Telling SCOTUS that they will rule a certain way, as if they (NY) are the authority
gunuser17 Posted January 5, 2023 at 05:58 PM Posted January 5, 2023 at 05:58 PM Statistically, NY is right. The US Supreme Court takes very few cases of the thousands that request review and even fewer second amendment cases so I don't expect the Supreme Court to focus on that issue. The real question is does the 2nd Circuit need to provide a reason for the stay, and, if so, how much of a reason.
Upholder Posted January 11, 2023 at 06:00 PM Posted January 11, 2023 at 06:00 PM Today, SCOTUS declined to intervene at this point and overturn the 2nd Circuit's ruling that itself overturned the District court's stay. There were no dissents, but Thomas and Alito noted that it was not a decision on the merits of the case:
springfield shooter Posted January 11, 2023 at 09:08 PM Posted January 11, 2023 at 09:08 PM On 1/11/2023 at 12:00 PM, Upholder said: Today, SCOTUS declined to intervene at this point and overturn the 2nd Circuit's ruling that itself overturned the District court's stay. There were no dissents, but Thomas and Alito noted that it was not a decision on the merits of the case: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-supreme-court-lets-new-york-enforce-new-gun-restrictions/ar-AA16e04c "No justice publicly dissented from the decision, but Justice Samuel Alito, writing for himself and fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, described the court's action as procedural (emphasis mine) "rather than expressing any view on the merits of the case."" "Wednesday's action may not be the last time the Supreme Court addresses New York's new gun law. Alito and Thomas noted that other challenges to the state's law are currently on a fast-track in the 2nd Circuit and invited plaintiffs to return to the Supreme Court if that appeals court does not expedite the proceedings in their case as well." (Emphasis mine.) In the interest of transparency: I got the link above from another post here at IC, than couldn't find it again. Not trying to steal anyone's thunder. Thanks for the link.
Upholder Posted March 16, 2023 at 04:32 PM Posted March 16, 2023 at 04:32 PM Quote NEW: The Second Circuit panel that will hear five Second Amendment cases on Monday is Judges Jacobs, Lynch, and Lee Quote This is an anti-gun panel, so it will be interesting to see if they uphold everything (the most likely scenario to convince SCOTUS to take it) or strike down some things and/or throw it out based on standing to try avoiding SCOTUS review
steveTA84 Posted March 16, 2023 at 05:07 PM Posted March 16, 2023 at 05:07 PM Let’s hope they throw a hissy fit and to cause SCOTUS to further slap stuff down
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.