Caulkins v Prizker Case Discussion

[mab22]

On 12/11/2023 at 9:35 AM, davel501 said:

 

You are watching the money get spread around in real time. The Vernon (Hills) Township Dems now have this money and can spread it to other campaign committees to do things like rewarding Eric Rinehart for charging Crimo Sr. 

Even more confusing . 
“what money”?
 

[davel501]

On 12/11/2023 at 10:42 AM, mab22 said:

Even more confusing . 
“what money”?
 

 

On 12/10/2023 at 9:53 PM, steveTA84 said:

Oh wow lol. So Rochford’s campaign, 6 months after being seated, transferred money to a local Dem party

 

 

it was one of the “top donors” to the party, in which the treasurer is sitting state rep Daniel Didech. This is just a joke at this point 😂😂😂😂
 

 

[steveTA84]

There it is. I did what I could to get it  all to this point. Now we wait 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23A527/292514/20231212101643913_Edited Application for Stay.pdf

Edited December 12, 2023 at 10:32 PM by steveTA84

[steveTA84]

[Molly B.]

Steve,

 

What is it you are showing us?

[steveTA84]

On 12/12/2023 at 6:24 PM, Molly B. said:

Steve,

 

What is it you are showing us?

The petition for injunction has been filed and sent to Justice Barrett. Some pretty juicy stuff in it too. (In second pic just that it was added to the main Caulkins docket)
 

Edited December 13, 2023 at 12:34 AM by steveTA84

[Molly B.]

Thank you!

[Mr. Fife]

[steveTA84]

On 12/12/2023 at 6:38 PM, Mr. Fife said:

LOFL!!! The petition is pretty darn good. We shall see what happens 

[mab22]

On 12/12/2023 at 4:28 PM, steveTA84 said:

There it is. I did what I could to get it  all to this point. Now we wait 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23A527/292514/20231212101643913_Edited Application for Stay.pdf

 

 

The full PDF displayed above has all the details. and is a bit easier on the eyes to read. 

 

It is worth a read as there is the IL Supreme court conflict of interest stuff, Equal Protection, The procedural issue of the Congress and Senate, and I believe they are asking for a stay for the Bevis case, and I think a couple of other items i am not sure I understand.

 

 

 

[Drylok]

I'm done, the legislatures, the courts, the lobbyists, the gun channels all make money off all this **** and its all a bunch of bull****.

We are post Heller, McDonald, NY pistol and Scalia, Alito and now Thomas have written it in black and white. I'm too busy for this **** if someone has a problem they can come to the door and we'll sort it out real ******* quick!

[steveTA84]

On 12/12/2023 at 7:35 PM, mab22 said:

 

The full PDF displayed above has all the details. and is a bit easier on the eyes to read. 

 

It is worth a read as there is the IL Supreme court conflict of interest stuff, Equal Protection, The procedural issue of the Congress and Senate, and I believe they are asking for a stay for the Bevis case, and I think a couple of other items i am not sure I understand.

 

 

 

 

I think they’re saying they’re similar and compliment one another but are different, and that action on Caulkins targets the ILSC’s ruling instead of a massive case like Bevis (national implications on “"assault weapons"”  vs targeting the state court’s ruling)

Edited December 13, 2023 at 01:45 AM by steveTA84

[lilguy]

Does Barrett have the authority to hault enforcement of PICA?

[steveTA84]

On 12/12/2023 at 8:06 PM, lilguy said:

Does Barrett have the authority to hault enforcement of PICA?

Yes

[mab22]

On 12/12/2023 at 8:12 PM, steveTA84 said:

Yes

I don’t think that would stop the Springfield Blimp, or the congressional criminals from telling the SCOTUS 🖕 this is our state and we don’t recognize your authority!
 

[mab22]

Don’t give too much weight to the Guarantees clause.

It doesn’t appear to have worked out all that well in the past.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-4/section-4/guarantee-clause-generally

 

 

 

[steveTA84]

On 12/12/2023 at 10:12 PM, mab22 said:

Don’t give too much weight to the Guarantees clause.

It doesn’t appear to have worked out all that well in the past.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-4/section-4/guarantee-clause-generally

 

 

 

Meh, there’s lots of other good things in the petition

[steveTA84]

Injunction prior to conference denied 

[2smartby1/2]

That sucks

[steveTA84]

On 12/13/2023 at 9:00 PM, 2smartby1/2 said:

That sucks

Kinda expected. The case wasn’t on 2A grounds anyways. Was worth a shot though. Guess we’ll see what happens on the 5th/soon after

[davel501]

On 12/13/2023 at 9:43 PM, steveTA84 said:

Kinda expected. The case wasn’t on 2A grounds anyways. Was worth a shot though. Guess we’ll see what happens on the 5th/soon after

 

Yeah, I wasn't expecting a quick solution when they said they had to meet to talk about it. 

[mab22]

There is still some hope in the Devore case, that is scheduled for early  Jan 2024 I believe. 
 

[Vodoun da Vinci]

So as I understand it, at this point, SCOTUS has refused to intervene and stop this train until all of these cases have been litigated to a dead stop in the lower courts. As was expected by some/many. I'm not able to keep up *but* I have been following it closely.

 

Amongst those who are savvy in this kind of thing, is it not probable that this will take years (if ever) before it is seen/evaluated by SCOTUS? Seems to me Coney-Barrett could have stepped in and halted registration until some of this can be resolved but did not/will not and so it sits until the Illinois Supreme Court has it's say and we all know how that's gonna turn out,

 

Aren't we likely looking at years here now?

 

VooDoo 

Edited December 17, 2023 at 06:11 PM by Vodoun da Vinci
spelling

[davel501]

On 12/17/2023 at 12:10 PM, Vodoun da Vinci said:

So as I understand it, at this point, SCOTUS has refused to intervene and stop this train until all of these cases have been litigated to a dead stop in the lower courts. As was expected by some/many. I'm not able to keep up *but* I have been following it closely.

 

Amongst those who are savvy in this kind of thing, is it not probable that this will take years (if ever) before it is seen/evaluated by SCOTUS? Seems to me Coney-Barrett could have stepped in and halted registration until some of this can be resolved but did not/will not and so it sits until the Illinois Supreme Court has it's say and we all know how that's gonna turn out,

 

Aren't we likely looking at years here now?

 

VooDoo 

 

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.

[Molly B.]

I don't think we're looking at years. My hope and expectation is sometime in 2024.

[Yettiblood]

I’m not optimistic about it.  Look at Maryland.  Bans in 2013 and still fighting it. 

[ragsbo]

On 12/17/2023 at 12:47 PM, Molly B. said:

I don't think we're looking at years. My hope and expectation is sometime in 2024.

I hope and pray you are correct but I WILL NOT be getting my hopes up! This should already been thrown in the trash can a long time ago but the courts don't seem to care

[mauserme]

On 12/17/2023 at 3:35 PM, Yettiblood said:

I’m not optimistic about it.  Look at Maryland.  Bans in 2013 and still fighting it. 

 

Yes, but SCOTUS reversed the lower court decision that upheld that ban.  They're miles ahead of us in this process, as are New Jersey and California.  Don't focus only on Illinois.

 

 

[splitaxe]

I think if they were to grant cert now, meaning in the next few months.  That the earliest an Illinois case would see arguments would be the fall of 2024 session.

 

Bevis could happen in that timeline, we will know after their next motion. The  general consensus is they won’t give Caulkins a look. 

Edited December 17, 2023 at 11:53 PM by splitaxe
bolded and italicized

[lilguy]

https://www.rawstory.com/amp/conservbative-supreme-court-2666615869

 

I hope they don’t see gun rights in this light.