Supreme Court

[ChuckS]

from Supreme Court Blog Spot

"At 10 a.m., the Court is scheduled to release orders from the Justices’ private conference last Friday We will provide coverage as soon as the list becomes available."

Crossing my fingers

Alan

Let's hope it goes well....

[Stage 3]

from Supreme Court Blog Spot

"At 10 a.m., the Court is scheduled to release orders from the Justices’ private conference last Friday We will provide coverage as soon as the list becomes available."

Crossing my fingers

Alan

Let's hope it goes well....

Any news?

[EZ Bagger]

Are we there yet?

[JThompson]

Nothing solid yet... 8:25 CST

[XRe]

There are several strict constructionest Judges on the bench.

All I have to say is Kelo vs. New London... If there is true strict constructionism on the court, its clearly not enough to stop stupidity...

[Alan Meek]

The Supreme Court on Tuesday announced no action on a new case testing the meaning of the Second Amendment. The next date for possible action on it is likely to be November 26, following a pre-Thanksgiving Conference set for November 20.

Edited November 13, 2007 by Alan Meek

[Singlestack Wonder]

From the SUpreme Court Blog site:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday announced no action on a new case testing the meaning of the Second Amendment. The next date for possible action on it is likely to be November 26, following a pre-Thanksgiving Conference set for November 20.

[JThompson]

Now there's a suprise...

[SA Friday]

Now there's a suprise...

You must not be a Govt employee . They could drag this thing out for months......

[Hoofy]

The wheels turn slow.

[LPatterson]

Now there's a suprise...

You must not be a Govt employee . They could drag this thing out for months......

Having been a Goverment employee I do not expect the SC to Cert this case so they wont have to rule on it. It is easier to bury something than it is to make a decision on it.

[Front Man]

Sounds like it's a done deal, meaning they won't hear it.

FM

[Alan Meek]

The Supreme Court on Tuesday announced no action on a new case testing the meaning of the Second Amendment. The next date for possible action on it is likely to be November 26, following a pre-Thanksgiving Conference set for November 20.

Looks like they are still discussing the possibility.

Until they deny it out right there is always a chance

Alan

[Carlos]

Among the factors they consider when deciding whether to grant cert, are:

-whether the issue involves a constitutional issue (this case does)

-whether the case involves a split among the 13 Federal circuits (this case does)

-whether the case involves an issue of nation importance (this case, arguably, does)

-whether the party(ies) are opposed or in favor of cert (both parties are in favor of the Court hearing this case)

And to a lesser extent with the current Court as compared to earlier Courts, whether there are important public policy implications involved in the resolution of the case.

This last point is tricky, as a ruling in this case could have ramifications far beyond the issue of civilian possession of arms. Taking this case may demand that the Court show its hand as to how it views and interprets our Constitution. I believe that the Court delayed their decision in order to consider what impact this case may have beyond the narrow issue of arms.

[tightloop]

What exactly is wrong with letting John Q Public know and understand how the highest court in the land views and interprets the Constitution......

[Carlos]

High Tightloop - I should have been more clear. I am certainly no expert on constitutional issues, but the current justices are (very) roughly divided into two groups. The media and much of population think this division is alone party lines - but that is not correct. Rather, one loosely defined branch follows the concept that laws are to be (where possible) interpreted as they are written by congress. Justice Scalia represents one of the justices in this camp. The other camp, again, very loosely, places greater importance on other factors such as “public policy” (or what is best for the country) and believes in “discovering new rights” that are not actually written in the constitution, but which are implied or otherwise needed in their view. This camp is often accused of “correcting” congress’ mistakes to comply with the justices’ view or acting as a “super legislature.” Justice Souter, a Bush appointee, represents one of the justices in this camp. The Justices are not bound to follow any of the beliefs of the party that nominated them, and many might point to Justice Souter as an example of a Justice who deviated from the path that his nominator had intended.

In any even, I do not want to see this thread locked, but I thought some explanation (in my view) might be useful. Maybe a more informed legal scholar can explain this more clearly.

I also located this from scotus blog, explaining possible reasons for the delay.

"The Court, of course, does not explain inaction. But among the possible reasons for delaying the case are these: one or more Justices simply asked for more time to consider the two cases; the Court may be rewriting the question or questions it will be willing to review — especially in view of the disagreement between the two sides on what should be at issue; the Court may have voted initially to deny review of one or both cases and one or more Justices are writing a dissent from the denial.

The appeal in 07-290 (District of Columbia v. Heller) raises the key issue about the Second Amendment’s meaning — that is, whether it guarantees an individual right to have a handgun for private use, at least in one’s home — and the appeal in 07-335 (Parker v. District of Columbia) poses a question about who may bring lawsuits to challenge laws before they are actively enforced.

Together, the cases thus present a somewhat complex mix for the Court, and it perhaps was not much of a surprise that no order issued on Tuesday. At no point is there likely to be an answer as to what happened to bring about the delay. Both cases are expected to be re-listed for the Nov. 20 Conference."

[tightloop]

Sounds to me like the SC and probaby most parts of the legislative branch of the government have watched too many Oprah shows...looking for something that is not there, interpreting "new" rights...

Man, do I feel ancient....what was wrong with see a problem, fix the problem....sounds more like a bunch of women, I "feel" this way; let's talk about it....going to call BS on that....cause unless either bunch of them can go back in time to really determine what the framers of the Constitution really meant, they should take it as written...kind of like every idiot who tries to ad lib onto the National Anthem...NOTHING beats the way it was originally written...at least there is not much miscommunication about that....Damn!!!

[Rob Boudrie]

This last point is tricky, as a ruling in this case could have ramifications far beyond the issue of civilian possession of arms. Taking this case may demand that the Court show its hand as to how it views and interprets our Constitution. I believe that the Court delayed their decision in order to consider what impact this case may have beyond the narrow issue of arms.

It's going to be tough when there is such a clear conflict between what the constitution requires and the "desired" public policy.

[Heavy Metal Only]

I'll keep it short and sweet.Does it really matter what they do?

Yep.

Possibly big time - although, frankly, I don't expect them to display any chutzpah in the matter and make any sort of sweeping ruling one way or the other (it also depends on how the case is brought before them, of course...). I have a large amount of fear that, if they did make a sweeping ruling, we would be very unhappy with it, though... (like, they would rule that the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right.... say bye bye to your bang-bangs, then, kids...).

FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS , try to take'em from me!

[GentlemanJim]

Settle down son...

We all feel that way...we just dont talk about it

Jim

Edit because what I typed is not what my mind told my finger to type

Edited November 14, 2007 by GentlemanJim

[Heavy Metal Only]

Oh sorry I mean AARRRRRRGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!! For our countries sake,lets hope it works out. I can't wait IF it goes the other way. I wonder how our gun loving citizens will react. Dare I suggest what milita means. Isnt that what the NRA is?

[ima45dv8]

No, let's not suggest what militia means or drag the NRA into this.

So far, this thread has managed to be very educational and fairly non-political (as far as this subject can be).

That is why it has remained open.

[outerlimits]

oh no, another closed thread on the way? c'mon, guyz...we're talking the 2nd amendment here!

[BigDave]

"Take it as written" isn't as simple as it sounds, more's the pity. If it were, courts would have no such thing as opinions which they've had since inception.

Life isn't black and white and neither are our laws, thankfully. To that end, here's to hoping that logic and common sense prevail and our rights are not infringed.

[AikiDale]

"Take it as written" isn't as simple as it sounds, more's the pity. If it were, courts would have no such thing as opinions which they've had since inception.

Life isn't black and white and neither are our laws, thankfully. To that end, here's to hoping that logic and common sense prevail and our rights are not infringed.

More's the pity is right. Back in 1863 the Supremes determined that 'shall' means 'if you feel like it.' It's all up for grabs when either the court or the legislature is in session. We'uns can just hope for the best.