Druid Posted September 26, 2020 at 02:15 PM Posted September 26, 2020 at 02:15 PM Not long ago, SCOTUS passed on hearing any of the ten 2A cases before it. I feel this was a tragedy for justice, although might have been better off since the court leans-left. With a new justice to be appointed, any chance any of those could be resurfaced or is a case they passed on dead for good and we would need to bring new cases?
mauserme Posted September 26, 2020 at 02:34 PM Posted September 26, 2020 at 02:34 PM I think it's inevitable that something will be granted cert, assuming the Senate confirms ACB's nomination. I don't know if that would be one of the existing cases or maybe something that's been waiting for the right moment. One thing's sure. It's going to interesting, and hopefully exiting.
mkhalil61 Posted September 26, 2020 at 03:34 PM Posted September 26, 2020 at 03:34 PM I think it's inevitable that something will be granted cert, assuming the Senate confirms ACB's nomination. I don't know if that would be one of the existing cases or maybe something that's been waiting for the right moment. One thing's sure. It's going to interesting, and hopefully exiting. It seems like they have the votes in the senate. Bunch of my liberal colleagues can't stop crying about it
Druid Posted September 28, 2020 at 01:13 PM Author Posted September 28, 2020 at 01:13 PM If any liberals are crying about it, here's a good article to show them that makes the case that Democrats are the hypocrites on this voting topic, not the Republicans: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/09/25/democrats-scotus-hypocrisy-surrounding-empty-seat-column/3505321001/?fbclid=IwAR2Lc60RHpqAzXHxdGHUokDyfgqNZBPbcAruoNs9XoniJi08JivgdwMBKHE In 2016, Sen. Schumer said, “Every day that goes by without a ninth justice is another day the American people's business is not getting done.”In 2020, Sen. Schumer said, “This vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”In 2016, Sen. Richard Blumenthal said, “There’s a duty to fill that vacancy, to make the system work.”In 2020, Sen. Blumenthal said, “This close to the election, there is no way that the United States Senate can or should act before the voters decide.”In 2016, Sen. Amy Klobuchar said, “Eight is not enough on the United States Supreme Court.”In 2020, Sen. Klobuchar said that Republicans would face a “moral reckoning” if they attempted to fill the ninth seat on the Supreme Court.In 2016, Vice President Biden said, “I made it absolutely clear that I would go forward with a confirmation process as chairman, even a few months before a presidential election. …The American people deserve a fully staffed Supreme Court of nine, not one disabled and divided, one that is able to rule on the great issues of the day.”
Silhouette Posted September 28, 2020 at 02:18 PM Posted September 28, 2020 at 02:18 PM Regarding the original poster's question, any question where cert was denied cannot be brought back to SCOTUS. Each matter gets only one bite at the apple. In most cases, cert petitions challenge the final judgement in a case, and then the case is completely over. In a few unusual circumstances, SCOTUS's denial may require a case to be remanded for further proceedings, in which case, the case could circle back to SCOTUS with a new petition. One example of such a situation (though unlikely) is NYSRPA vs NYC, where SCOTUS declared the second amendment question moot given the current set of claims but remanded the case to a lower court to determine if a claim for damages could be added. One could imagine a new question of law arising out of the damage claim matter, or the allowance of a damage claim to permit the court to return to the original question regarding 2A that would then be ripe for review. Such happenings are very rare.
Rangerdeepv Posted September 28, 2020 at 02:59 PM Posted September 28, 2020 at 02:59 PM The next few months and maybe years are going to be very interesting to say the least. Maybe the SCOTUS knew RBG was on her last legs and 'waited' rather than gamble. RBG was a great Justice and the world is a lesser place without her. Although I did not agree with 98% of her rulings I respected her nonetheless. ACB appears to be more than a worthy successor and it will be interesting to see how the dum0crap ding-a-lings treat her in the hearings.
richp Posted September 28, 2020 at 04:10 PM Posted September 28, 2020 at 04:10 PM I think a lot of this exhuberance will evaporate if Biden is elected. After all, Thomas (sadly) is not exactly a young man in good health. His departure from the court would be the starting point for Biden/Harris to do their own reshaping. Rich Phillips
Ranger Posted September 28, 2020 at 08:19 PM Posted September 28, 2020 at 08:19 PM Yeah. Even if Amy gets confirmed, we can't assume that we'll have a solid majority on SCOTUS for long unless Trump is reelected and the Republicans keep the Senate. If Trump is reelected and the Republicans keep the Senate, there is a huge potential to have a great SCOTUS with possible replacement of Stevens and some others.
MRE Posted September 30, 2020 at 07:47 PM Posted September 30, 2020 at 07:47 PM I think a lot of this exhuberance will evaporate if Biden is elected. After all, Thomas (sadly) is not exactly a young man in good health. His departure from the court would be the starting point for Biden/Harris to do their own reshaping.Rich PhillipsThis is a common misconception about Thomas, mainly because not many realize just how young he was when he was appointed. He is only 72, not 80+. Roughly the same age as Alito, not much older than Roberts or Sotomayor, and much younger than Breyer I seriously doubt he will retire within the next 4 years knowing his replacement will almost certainly be counter to every philosophical bone in his body.
press1280 Posted October 2, 2020 at 11:24 PM Posted October 2, 2020 at 11:24 PM Not long ago, SCOTUS passed on hearing any of the ten 2A cases before it. I feel this was a tragedy for justice, although might have been better off since the court leans-left. With a new justice to be appointed, any chance any of those could be resurfaced or is a case they passed on dead for good and we would need to bring new cases? Those specific cases are dead, but a copycat case could always be filed. If you recall, the public carry cases in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Circuits were actually decided back in 2012-2014 and then denied review by SCOTUS. Copycat cases were filed right after the Wrenn case in DC in 2017 created a circuit split, unfortunately SCOTUS passed on those too. IMO we will see another round of copycat cases when (if) ACB is confirmed to SCOTUS.
press1280 Posted October 2, 2020 at 11:30 PM Posted October 2, 2020 at 11:30 PM I think it's inevitable that something will be granted cert, assuming the Senate confirms ACB's nomination. I don't know if that would be one of the existing cases or maybe something that's been waiting for the right moment. One thing's sure. It's going to interesting, and hopefully exiting.There are 2 at conference right now, although they aren't high profile cases that would necessarily affect people right away.
mab22 Posted October 6, 2020 at 03:34 AM Posted October 6, 2020 at 03:34 AM First denial so far with this current court. 19 year old looses rite well into adulthood, without full due process. https://americanmilitarynews.com/2020/10/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-2nd-second-amendment-case-this-year-first-this-session/?utm_source=bgin&utm_campaign=alt&utm_medium=facebook
Flynn Posted October 6, 2020 at 06:30 PM Posted October 6, 2020 at 06:30 PM First denial so far with this current court. 19 year old looses rite well into adulthood, without full due process. https://americanmilitarynews.com/2020/10/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-2nd-second-amendment-case-this-year-first-this-session/?utm_source=bgin&utm_campaign=alt&utm_medium=facebook IMO that was a bad case in regards to the 2nd, as it was primarily argued on the legitimacy of bench trials vs jury trials. Im not saying I agree with the outcome but this was more a 6th Amendment case then a 2nd.
Ranger Posted October 7, 2020 at 04:12 PM Posted October 7, 2020 at 04:12 PM The Trace is an antigun group. I subscribed to their email just to gain insight into their warped minds. Here is a recent article they sent out that I thought was informative and might be of interest. The Supreme Court fight and the future of gun laws Judge Amy Coney Barrett began meeting with Senators this week ahead of what Republicans hope to be an expedited confirmation process that installs her on the Supreme Court before Election Day. Her appointment would solidify a 6-3 conservative majority and have profound repercussions — potentially within weeks if election lawsuits end up before the high court as some predict. Barrett’s confirmation is also likely to usher in a sea change in how the court approaches the Second Amendment, as Trace contributor Olivia Li has been reporting. Part of that comes from Barrett’s legal philosophy. Even many Republican-appointed judges have considered a local government’s justifications for enacting a gun reform — for instance, public safety concerns — in assessing its constitutionality. But Barrett prefers a “text, history, and tradition” test that calls on courts to restrict themselves to historical precedent in determining whether a regulation is legal. To break it all down for you, I asked Olivia to walk me through what Barrett’s ascension to the court could mean for gun violence prevention. Why would adding Barrett to the Court be so potentially significant for gun laws in the United States? Conservatives already have a majority. Here’s the important math: You need five justices on your side to win a case, but only four to agree to put your case on the docket. Barrett’s confirmation would mean that there are enough justices to put Second Amendment cases on the docket, which the Court has refused to do for a decade. Yes, there are already five conservative Justices, but according to law professors I’ve spoken with, Chief Justice John Roberts is seen as a wild card on guns. The other four conservatives didn’t want to put a Second Amendment case on the docket only to have Roberts side against them in the final opinion. So just how big a challenge would a Justice Barrett pose for the gun reform movement? The gun safety movement is pro-regulation, advocating for restrictions like red flag laws, possession bans for felons, universal background checks, strict permit rules for public carry, bans on high-capacity magazines — the list goes on. The text, history, and tradition analysis that Judge Barrett favors — and which Justices Kavanaugh and Thomas already embrace — could find some of those gun violence prevention laws unconstitutional. It is impossible to predict exactly which policies are vulnerable to a historical test on the Supreme Court. But looking at dissents by judges who have used it in past cases offers pretty strong clues. Justice Kavanaugh would have struck down D.C.’s weapons registration requirements, and its ban on semi-automatic rifles. Justice Thomas would have struck down New Jersey’s “may issue” standard for concealed gun permits. Judge Barrett said that blanket felon dispossession laws are unconstitutional when applied to nonviolent offenders; a judge on the 9th Circuit said something similar about mental illness-related dispossession laws; a 9th Circuit opinion recently declared California’s ban on high-capacity magazines unconstitutional. (Though the judges in that case used the current balancing test, they took a really history-heavy approach.) If Barrett is confirmed and the text, history, and tradition test becomes the Court’s standard for gun cases, could progressive lawmakers craft gun restrictions that still meet that standard? If it replaces the current balancing test — and that’s a big if — government officials would need to be able to defend their laws in historical terms. The pro-gun side has already been doing that for decades. A ton of intellectual capital (and NRA money) went into the project of redefining the right to bear arms as an individual right, and it finally paid off with Heller. With Barrett on the Court, we might see lawyers on the pro-regulation side spending more time researching the history of gun laws and developing scholarship on the history of gun restrictions. –Tom Kutsch, newsletter editor WHAT TO KNOW THIS WEEK During the first presidential debate, President Trump refused to denounce white supremacist and armed militia groups who’ve committed violence during this year’s protests and urged his followers to patrol polling sites. In a Washington Post column, gun scholar Robert Spitzer explained how fears of election intimidation, specifically with guns, long predate the Trump era. On the day of the debate, an FBI field office issued a warning about the threat of far-right boogaloo extremists, identifying the period between presidential election and inauguration as a “potential flashpoint.” Trump administration officials were directed to make public comments sympathetic to the 17-year-old charged with fatally shooting two protesters in Kenosha, according to internal DHS talking points obtained by NBC News. Chicago released a comprehensive violence reduction plan that leans heavily into treating gun violence as a public health crisis. The blueprint prioritizes community anti-violence organizations, but lacks detail on costs and how the city intends to cover them. A federal judge ruled that former NRA donors have standing to continue a fraud suit against the gun group. Meanwhile, New York regulators delayed a hearing over civil charges brought against the NRA for violating state insurance laws. The California attorney general is suing the ATF to compel the bureau to define ghost gun assembly kits as firearms, which would subject their buyers to background checks. Military suicides have increased by as much as 20 percent this year compared to the same period in 2019. Army officials cite pandemic-related isolation, financial disruptions, remote schooling, and deployments made longer by mandatory quarantines. The storied gunmaker Remington will be broken up and sold following a bankruptcy auction. It’s not clear what the dissolution means for Sandy Hook families in their lawsuit against the company. MORE FROM OUR REPORTERS The case that could topple the gun industry’s special legal protections. For the last 15 years, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act has protected gunmakers and sellers from most liability lawsuits. That special status was put in jeopardy when a Pennsylvania appeals court deemed the law unconstitutional this week. If the ruling stands, gun companies won’t be able to use the law to dismiss a lawsuit in the state. If it’s appealed all the way to the Supreme Court and struck down, the gun industry could be exposed to the kinds of product-liability suits that forced sweeping reforms in the pharmaceutical, tobacco, and automotive industries, legal experts tell Champe Barton. The growing movement to send counselors to some 911 calls instead of cops. A quarter of people shot and killed by cops in the U.S. over the last five years suffered from mental illness, according to The Washington Post’s fatal police shootings database. As part of the nationwide movement to reimagine policing, a handful of cities are experimenting with programs that they say provide a potentially life-saving alternative to traditional law enforcement responses — and save millions of dollars in the process. Advocates told Jennifer Mascia why crisis workers can make better first responders for people with severe mental illness. The Trace is hiring.We’re looking for a managing editor to keep copy flowing, supervise our engagement and community editors, and work with our other editors and our newsroom operations coordinator to ensure our dogged reporters have the support they need. We’re also hiring a story editor to lead a team of our writers as they pursue high-impact articles and projects. The deadline for both positions is October 16, and we’re accepting applications at info@thetrace.org.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.