Jump to content

Caulkins v Prizker Case Discussion

jcable2

By jcable2
in Judicial Second Amendment Case Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

steveTA84 Member

steveTA84

Posted
Posted
On 12/2/2023 at 3:32 PM, Matt B said:


Mark doesn’t touch on the 2a or equal protection claims also raised by the cert petition. Maybe he feels that the conservative justices not being on board with Caperton is enough to sink the petition. 

I’m also thinking a separation of powers thing could potentially be in play, and that’s a work around for the conservative justices and the campaign donations, but the fact two branches of government bankrolled the third and we’re defendants and the third refused to step aside, that’s a little different and much worse than what happened in Caperton 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dumak_from_arfcom Member

Dumak_from_arfcom

Posted
Posted
On 12/3/2023 at 11:17 AM, 2smartby1/2 said:

I am feeling, dare I say, optimistic about how things are going.    

 

Well it is the SCOTUS, they can do whatever they want.  The question is, is the Caulkins case enough of an FU to the high court for them to take it up?  I don't think so.

 

The federal cases are the bigger FU to the high court precedents.  Is it enough to grant an injunction?  I'm still leaning no, but.... combined with the Caulkins case it could be.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mab22 Member

mab22

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 12/2/2023 at 10:28 AM, steveTA84 said:

https://www.gunssavelife.com/2023/12/01/dan-caulkins-appeal-to-scotus-takes-interesting-turn-state-waives-ordered-response/


 

Caulkins recently filed an Petition for Certiorari on November 9th, asking the US Supreme Court to grant “Cert” (shorthand for Certiorari, meaning that SCOTUS will accept the case for review and a decision).  A response was due December 14th.

 

Today, the State of Illinois, via Attorney General Kwame Raoul, issued its response.


 

What’s this mean in English?

 

One interpretation from Caulkins’ attorney suggests the State of Illinois accepted the truthfulness of the statements Caulkins asserted in his filing.

 

My interpretation (and I am not a lawyer) is that Governor Pritzker is simply choosing to triage resources for upcoming hearings and this one did not make the cut.  Instead of devoting scarce resources to this, the Illinois Attorney General’s Office is betting that this is one of those 97.2% of petitions the US Supreme Court simply decides not to accept.

 

Does the likelihood of acceptance go up when the State of Illinois is not responding to the Petition for Cert?  Maybe.  But even if it goes up 50% (which I’m pretty confident is wildly overstating it), that still means a 96% chance of rejection.

 

On the other hand, if the long-shot petition is granted, SCOTUS will hear the case.  What’s more, this would send shockwaves through the State of Illinois.

Quote

Bishop on Air video with Caulkins Attorney, I could not quote with an edit so…


I think the reason for the silence is explained by Stocks starting around the 22:00 time in the video posted a couple links back by Matt. 
At about 24:00 he explains that you have to submit, and how you avoid the “shackling”…. Watch the video.

My $.02, they are doing what most attorneys tell you to do….. SHUT UP!

If this was all above board, they wouldn’t have to shut their soup coolers!

Edited by mab22
Adding link to video
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mab22 Member

mab22

Posted
Posted
On 12/4/2023 at 10:23 AM, Vodoun da Vinci said:

 

The good stuff happens at 1:40. Apparently the State of Illinois has informed the SCOTUS that it will not be filing briefs. Isn't that contempt of court?

 

VooDoo

This one seems to be more are HART v Illinois.

As for they IL will not be filing briefs, I think there are 2 reasons. IMO.

1. You want "save resources and make it look, like no big deal".

2. You have to submit sworn documentation, and your lawyers realize it could be a bad thing.... My Opinion, is this is why.

In the video an attorney explains it at about 22 or 24 minutes in.

3. Just plain old arrogance and distain for your citizens as described in the video.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John Q Public Member

John Q Public

Posted
Posted (edited)

It certainly is contemptuous of the court, I don't think they are required to file them. I think it would be a great time for the court to adjust some attitude in the state of Illinois. 

 

I'd like to see them suck all the relevant transgressions and burn them all down at once. 

 

Things could get interesting.

Edited by John Q Public
Link to comment
Share on other sites
davel501 Member

davel501

Posted
Posted
On 12/4/2023 at 11:23 AM, John Q Public said:

It certainly is contemptuous of the court, nut I don't think they are required to file them. I think it would be a great time for the court to adjust some attitude in the state of Illinois. 

 

I'd like to see them suck all the relevant transgressions and burn them all down at once. 

 

Things could get interesting.

 

I don't think you'll see this from the Roberts court. They want to be low profile and this could very well be a trap - the Illinois dems could be begging them to burn it all down so they can paint SCOTUS as radical insurrectionists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Upholder Member

Upholder

Posted
Posted

It's important to remember that there are two cases in front of the SCOTUS right now.

 

The mandate from the court for the state to respond is in the NAGR appeal of the 7th circuit panel decision.  That response is due Wed 12/6.

 

The filing that the state made is in the Caulkins case, where they were not ordered to file a response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John Q Public Member

John Q Public

Posted
Posted (edited)

@Dave

 

They are going to try and do that on any ruling they don't agree with. There was no hotter issue than Roe and they went after that, rightly so, but I wish they would have done the 2nd first.

 

Besides, the more of these bans the states put in place will make it harder from them to rule because XX states now have them in place. The SC need to nut up and do the right thing, and soon.

Edited by John Q Public
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dumak_from_arfcom Member

Dumak_from_arfcom

Posted
Posted
On 12/4/2023 at 11:28 AM, Upholder said:

It's important to remember that there are two cases in front of the SCOTUS right now.

 

The mandate from the court for the state to respond is in the NAGR appeal of the 7th circuit panel decision.  That response is due Wed 12/6.

 

The filing that the state made is in the Caulkins case, where they were not ordered to file a response.

 

Well what options does the state really have in filing a response?  Deny the judges campaigned with anti-gun groups for an AWB, and took money from those groups to get elected?    

 

That would be worse than scrubbing their social media accounts of the evidence.  

 

This is just the Illinois way of saying "We did nothing wrong" while holding the smoking gun. 

 

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
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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