orangesolo

SCOTUS to hold closed door conference on NJ gun law case

136 posts in this topic

No longer accurate. If it were, there wouldn't be an open seat. The Dems will look at any appointments the same way that the Reps looked at Merrick Garland. Even assuming the use of the nuclear option, there are enough Reps who don't like trump that it still isn't a slam dunk. If I were a betting man, I wouldn't be betting on this, just too many different ways it could play out.

Not really. Garland was a spoiler thrown in by Obamanocchio. SCOTUS nominees during a POTUS last year in office are rarely appointed no matter who is in office and the makeup of the Senate. Garland's nomination died when the the new Congress was sworn in this month. There have been 112 SCOTUS Justices. If you throw Garland's consideration into the stats it adds about 2.5 days into the total. Using the 90 day average, it adds about 3 days.

 

Trump has asked for the nuclear option if conformation is held up. McConnell has refuses to comment on that but has said he thinks that whoever Trump nominates will be fully qualified. Trump is announcing his nominee today.

 

My money is on Trump's SCOTUS nominee will be confirmed NLT May 1.

 

We'll see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^this. if the court decides as it should that permitting laws are unconstitutional then it will be the dawn of a new era. if not however, it's going to be very dark days for nj. they'll be emboldened to go further. 

 

having said that, there's no way this permitting scheme is legal. basically, as i read it, guns are outlawed in this state unless you have written permission from the state. say what? how it got to this point in the first place is what i don't understand. where was the nra when this shit was first passed?

 

The NRA of yesteryear (1950's & 60's) was very different from the NRA we have now.  In fact, it was passing off laws like we have here in New Jersey that prompted a change in leadership and tactics.  The NRA had started taking steps to get further our of politics, but that didn't sit well with the 2A activists.  As a result they took over and rallied membership so that they could take a much harder line against the anti's.  More money was directed to lobbying and membership grew.  

 

Honestly, some folks around ought to take time to put things in perspective. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So let me get this straight. We have a case challenging NJ gun laws at the doorstep of SCOTUS, that could possibly restore our right to carry, and it has no support or backing from the gang over at ANJRPC? Shocker.

 

If they think its a bad case, they aren't going to touch it.  Also consider, if the guys case is all about race, maybe he stands a better shot with a justice or two by not being backed by the big bad "gun lobby"?

 

If the Court of current sees it our way. If not, um.....much travesty

 

 

Does anyone have any idea what he is saying? Blue Book?

 

Either way SCOTUS is going on a year without a 9th Justice. I don't think Dems will try and drag it out and further turn public opinion against them. Plus there is nothing stopping the GOP from using Nuclear Option to confirm Justice. I'm going with 60 days tops. If Cert is granted (only takes 4) 9 will hear the case and 5 will rule for the Second Amendment. This could be big depending how the majority opinion is written.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

Frankly guys, I don't think we will see a decision either way.  SCOTUS with Scalia passed on multiple cases, SCOTUS without Scalia isn't likely to take it up in our favor. Even if the nominee is Scalia incarnate, we are back to status quo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they think its a bad case, they aren't going to touch it. Also consider, if the guys case is all about race, maybe he stands a better shot with a justice or two by not being backed by the big bad "gun lobby"?

 

 

 

 

Frankly guys, I don't think we will see a decision either way. SCOTUS with Scalia passed on multiple cases, SCOTUS without Scalia isn't likely to take it up in our favor. Even if the nominee is Scalia incarnate, we are back to status quo.

Except the political environment and public opinion has moved towards Second Amendment Rights. You would think the opposite would be true but studies show it is not. While the court isn't supposed to be influenced by such things it is. I would be more comfortable once Ginsburg is gone but I think we are in good shape now.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except the political environment and public opinion has moved towards Second Amendment Rights. You would think the opposite would be true but studies show it is not. While the court isn't supposed to be influenced by such things it is. I would be more comfortable once Ginsburg is gone but I think we are in good shape now.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

If we are going to count votes, we would theoretically get Thomas, Alito, & Roberts. Kennedy is the only other remaining member of the Heller 5, but tends to be the swing vote and has voted against us on related issues (Strawpurchase case comes to mind). It stands to reason that we couldn't get a case taken up by the court because neither side was certain where the majority would fall. (And they know much more about the dynamics of member's decisions on cases than anyone outside the court does)

 

Anyway, that leaves us with Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, or Kagen.  I am pretty certain we are not getting one of them. So it will fall to the new nominee when he/she arrives and... hopefully Kennedy.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many are uninformed on what criteria the SCOTUS uses to decide which cases they hear. They don't hear "good" cases. They hear cases where a Constitutional issue is in question. The next criteria is does or affect enough people to be important.

 

I'm sure when they meet to decide which cases they will hear they wind up with 3 piles yes, no, and maybe. If they think they have more time they do through the maybe pile again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many are uninformed on what criteria the SCOTUS uses to decide which cases they hear. They don't hear "good" cases. They hear cases where a Constitutional issue is in question. The next criteria is does or affect enough people to be important.

 

I'm sure when they meet to decide which cases they will hear they wind up with 3 piles yes, no, and maybe. If they think they have more time they do through the maybe pile again.

 

It takes four justices saying yes for SCOTUS to hear a case.  How they make that decision is up to them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It takes four justices saying yes for SCOTUS to hear a case. How they make that decision is up to them.

 

You are correct. I oversimplified it. Judges obviously consider the case individually before they discuss and vote on it.

 

If 4 justices don't think its a Constitutional issue it doesn't get heard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a possibility that they can read the brief, and just order NJ to follow the court's previous decisions, without hearing the case?

Lower court ruling stands in the situation you describe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lower court ruling stands in the situation you describe

 

I mean the decisions from the Supreme court.

Heller etc.

 

These points are referenced in this and the Sappa suit, but the lower courts ignore the decisions made by the Supreme court.

It would seem like an incredible waste of time if States could just ignore supreme court rulings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lower court ruling stands in the situation you describe

Not 100% true. Lower Court ruling only stands if Cert is denied. Supreme Court can grant Cert without oral argument by issuing a summary opinion. To answer the question asked yes the Supreme Court can do just that. However it would be unlikely in such an important matter. The fact that there is a closed door meeting means at least one Justice found the case important enough and within the jurisdiction of the court.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking this is where NJ is going to get screwed, and we win.

 

b.Handguns. Any person who knowingly has in his possession any handgun, including any antique handgun without first having obtained a permit to carry the same as provided in N.J.S.2C:58-4, is guilty of a crime of the third degree.

 

because....

 

They denied his permit and had no good reason to do so.

Nappen has alluded to this as being unconstitutional, but never went anywhere with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking this is where NJ is going to get screwed, and we win.

 

b.Handguns. Any person who knowingly has in his possession any handgun, including any antique handgun without first having obtained a permit to carry the same as provided in N.J.S.2C:58-4, is guilty of a crime of the third degree.

 

because....

 

They denied his permit and had no good reason to do so.

Nappen has alluded to this as being unconstitutional, but never went anywhere with it.

It's up to them.

I'd much rather have a new Supreme ( ala trump) in there for these cases

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Dems try to block the confirmation of the next judge, Trump will tell McConnell to use the nuclear option (50 vote majority vs 60). 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/28/mcconnell-refuses-to-say-whether-nuclear-option-in-supreme-court-nomination-is-on-table.html

 

Regardless, there will be no 9th justice sitting on the court if the case itself (not the cert) is heard in early February.  Its a crying shame this case came up so fast!!

 

Here's a deal for you.  A liberal SCOTUS judge dies or retires and Trump gets the next pick (after Gorsuch of course).  Offer the Dems Merrick Garland in exchange for supporting all kinds of Repub. legislative agenda.   Otherwise they get a very conservative pick along with the nuclear option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/16-7165.htm&utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss

 

No. 16-7165   Title: Marc A. Stephens, Petitioner v. Edward A. Jerejian, Judge, Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County, et al. Docketed: December 13, 2016 Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit   Case Nos.: (15-3992)   Decision Date: June 16, 2016   Rehearing Denied: July 13, 2016
~~~Date~~~  ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Oct 11 2016 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 12, 2017) Jan 10 2017 Waiver of right of respondents Judge Honorable Edward A. Jerejian and John Jay Hoffman to respond filed. Jan 26 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 17, 2017.  

 

 

~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~    ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   ~~Phone~~~ Attorneys for Petitioner:     Marc Stephens 271 Rosemont Place     Englewood, NJ  07631   Party name: Marc A. Stephens Attorneys for Respondents:     Adam Robert Gibbons Office of the Attorney's General of New Jersey (609) 633-8687     Counsel of Record 25 Market Street     Trenton, NJ  08625     adam.gibbons@lps.state,nj.us Party name: Judge Honorable Edward A. Jerejian and John Jay Hoffman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/16-7165.htm&utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss

No. 16-7165 Title: Marc A. Stephens, Petitioner v. Edward A. Jerejian, Judge, Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County, et al. Docketed: December 13, 2016 Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Case Nos.: (15-3992) Decision Date: June 16, 2016 Rehearing Denied: July 13, 2016

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Oct 11 2016 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 12, 2017) Jan 10 2017 Waiver of right of respondents Judge Honorable Edward A. Jerejian and John Jay Hoffman to respond filed. Jan 26 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 17, 2017.

 

~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~ Attorneys for Petitioner: Marc Stephens 271 Rosemont Place Englewood, NJ 07631 Party name: Marc A. Stephens Attorneys for Respondents: Adam Robert Gibbons Office of the Attorney's General of New Jersey (609) 633-8687 Counsel of Record 25 Market Street Trenton, NJ 08625 adam.gibbons@lps.state,nj.us Party name: Judge Honorable Edward A. Jerejian and John Jay Hoffman

Is there a translation of what this signifies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a deal for you.  A liberal SCOTUS judge dies or retires and Trump gets the next pick (after Gorsuch of course).  Offer the Dems Merrick Garland in exchange for supporting all kinds of Repub. legislative agenda.   Otherwise they get a very conservative pick along with the nuclear option.

 

Is this a deal worth making?  I mean how much longer will the filibuster last if the dems were to hold a slight majority of the Senate.  I think we might be seeing its last days.  

 

I'm thinking this is where NJ is going to get screwed, and we win.

 

b.Handguns. Any person who knowingly has in his possession any handgun, including any antique handgun without first having obtained a permit to carry the same as provided in N.J.S.2C:58-4, is guilty of a crime of the third degree.

 

because....

 

They denied his permit and had no good reason to do so.

Nappen has alluded to this as being unconstitutional, but never went anywhere with it.

 

Nappen had it on the docket for the NJ Supreme Court, but NJ Supremes kicked it to the curb when SCOTUS passed on Drake as I recall.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this a deal worth making?  I mean how much longer will the filibuster last if the dems were to hold a slight majority of the Senate.  I think we might be seeing its last days.  

 

 

Nappen had it on the docket for the NJ Supreme Court, but NJ Supremes kicked it to the curb when SCOTUS passed on Drake as I recall.  

I'm sure the NJ supremes would rule against the constitution.

The SCOTUS case, if heard,  will be very interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They will screw us. The supreme dipshits don't interpret The Constitution, they write the laws. They will generally take the path of greatest oppression. Without oppressing someone, be it The States or The People, they have no power.

 

Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.

 

FATW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a translation of what this signifies?

 

If you follow the link, it states that the case was "DISTRIBUTED" for the conference on Feb 17th.  That means its in the mix and can be accepted, rejected or rescheduled again for review during the next meeting.  Eventually, it will either be accepted for a hearing or denied.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone have any idea what he is saying? Blue Book?

Either way SCOTUS is going on a year without a 9th Justice. I don't think Dems will try and drag it out and further turn public opinion against them. Plus there is nothing stopping the GOP from using Nuclear Option to confirm Justice. I'm going with 60 days tops. If Cert is granted (only takes 4) 9 will hear the case and 5 will rule for the Second Amendment. This could be big depending how the majority opinion is written.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

The dems will do everything in their power to prevent a republican court nominee from being confirmed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The dems will do everything in their power to prevent a republican court nominee from being confirmed.

The longest the Dems could drag it out for if the GOP doesn't use the nuclear option is 86 days. More likely it will be 43 days or less. Chuckie is no Strom Thurmond. This has been discussed. Let the Dems filibuster, but make them actually filibuster which is what the rules of the Senate call for.

 

A legislative session can last as long as the President Pro Tempore chooses. They each get 2 speeches. Strom holds the record at just over 24hrs. They go to the bathroom, stop talking, etc their speech ends. 4 have already shown they will cross party lines and August King has as well. Once they have each given their 2 speeches an up or down vote can be called. No nuclear option needed.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
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