b47356

Did the Siegel/Koons plaintiffs file a response in the 3rd circuit appeal? Can't find anything, and it was due today..

I guess it is just the legal ones that are the problem.

I was kinda hoping to read about all these impeachment proceedings. The thought of a republican house bringing impeachment charges against a judge for the crime of being appointed by a republican, to be judged by a (nominally) democrat senate is just so crazy I want to hear how the rest of the story goes. Or at least name all these judges that have been "removed".

Scott Brady was US Attorney for western PA, not a judge of the 3rd circuit. US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. It is normal for some to all of them to be fired when a new admin takes office. (Pretty bad example too, since the guy has said he would never serve as a US Attorney under a democrat admin) Senior judges are all judges with at least 10 years experience on that bench, and.. well.. they can't be "forced out" they can't even be forced to take senior status. An article III judge has no retirement age... I get that "conspiracy theory" has had a bad habit of becoming "verified truth" lately, but could we please avoid uncritically posting things that make no sense? The only way to remove an article III judge is impeachment. Think it might of been mentioned in the news if that was the case?

It still takes a vote of the court to actually hear the case. And the odds of them hearing anything before final judgement is low, see Antonyuk (and other 2nd circuit cases) in january: Application (22A557) to vacate stay presented to Justice Sotomayor and by her referred to the Court is denied. Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins, respecting the denial of the application to vacate stay Well, at least the statement got the 2nd moving less slowly. Sorta.

I don't know why this keeps getting thrown out like it means something. Alito isn't going to show up in Philly and say "We really meant it when Bruen was written" and "poof", like magic, all the same courts that ignored Heller for years are going to say "My bad" and start following SCOTUS. When the 3rd slow walks things like the 2nd did (after removing the TRO), the same thing will happen - SCOTUS will write a sternly worded letter, and things will move at a slightly faster glacial pace. I don't know about the rest of you think, but didn't that mention by SCOTUS really speed things up in the 3rd? 2 months since oral argument, is there an over-under on how long they sit on ruling it? And during this wait, _nothing_ is going on in district court for these cases.

Anything to keep it tied up in court for 5 years.

According to Cousin's on FB, everything is fine.. https://www.facebook.com/46962029829/posts/10159766281859830/?mibextid=rS40aB7S9Ucbxw6v

If Bumb gives the PI, and the 3rd circuit overrules it, it just means the case continues in Bumb's court. SCOTUS is not going to get involved in that.. Well, Thomas or Alito might write an entertaining dissent on the failure to grant cert, but that is all..

How do you figure that?

The "5th circuit court of appeals" doesn't cover Illinois. This is a state case being appealed to the state supreme court.

Many states do, but it was never legal from a federal standpoint. See the comments about weed on the 4473.

Same case, same judge. Unless you think that this case will keep going until this judge retires.

I'm sure they will jump right in when the makeup of the court changes.

(Only in the 5th Circuit) (LA, MS, TX)

Unless someone in here was that person in school who handed in their homework early, I'm not sure why anyone would complain about a schedule. Of course you hand it in when it is due... and not before..

Err.. everything is on a schedule. The you can't "run out the clock" by filing late - you have to file on time, and the other side has X amount of time to respond. There are plenty of issues with what the state did with the carry killer bill, but can we not attack someone for following a schedule?

What is amazing about a case being considered in conference? They all get considered. Over 99% of them get rejected.

Which case was that?

Feel free to believe what you wish. The fact that "Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history." was ignored for 14 years. Yet Bruen is going to result in all of our wishes coming true? I find it amazing that people who nominally pay attention to firearm cases seem to believe that leftist circuit court judges will be unable to come up with an "interpretation" of Bruen that fits whatever they want it to. All the court has to do in the "historic analysis" is believe a historian like Saul Cornell as opposed to a pro-2a one. After all, there are plenty of anti-gun historians out there.

Have you read Macdonald, Heller, or Bruen? Here is a quote from the 2nd page (syllabus) of Bruen. "Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny." Here we are, 14 years later, and SCOTUS just got around to saying "that isn't what we said"

Yet the 9th sat on a ruling for 4 years, and now tossed it back to district court. I guess they just needed more time to figure out how to rule against him. Or they are just hoping that he dies. After 20+ years of reading about the latest "sure thing" NJ gun case, I'll believe it when I can actually see a positive ruling.

You honestly think the 9th circuit (or any circuit) can't come up with the same ruling that they have been dropping since Heller? Heller was pretty clear, yet since then we have had insane rulings coming out of multiple circuits, all "following Heller".. See the MD AWB ruling in Kolbe v Hogan as an example.

The CA open carry case (NIchols) was fully briefed in the 9th circuit... 4 years ago.. now it is back in district court.. a case that was filed in 2011. I don't see the "justice delayed is justice denied" crowd protesting this one. Being sent back to the district level is starting over, at least 2 years before anything final happens.

Yeah, we all know how "professional courtesy" works. It means cops rarely get arrested or ticketed for anything. I'm not sure that cheering about how cops and some ex-cops get to often ignore the law is a winning argument. At least in NJ, where we all know how the major police organization feels about any new gun law that comes up. "We got our exceptions, so we support this law"