I said their families.

 

This isn't amateur hour. It's Marxism.

 

I'm still not convinced.  If it's one of the "families" of the liberals they're going after, the MSM will be the watchdog there and counteract anything the NSA could try,or anyone else for that matter.  Besides, the NSA is under a boat load of scruitiny now, anyway.  Frankly, I think the MSM will be there in either case, simply because they're all anti-NSA now.

 

Besides, I think anyone in the family of a SCOTUS justice already knows what they're in for. I'm sure the family gets just as vetted as the justice themself when going through confirmation hearings. And anything since then would be subject to MSM scruitny anyway. 

How many votes are required to get a case heard? My understanding is that it's not a "full majority" of SCOTUS, but some kind of "sub-majority"  like 3-4 of whatever sub-committee of justices are evaluating cases....

 

Update:  According to my Googling, it takes only 4 of 9 justices to grant cert, based on a SCOTUS conference.... So, assuming Scalia, Thomas, and Alito all vote for cert, we only need either Roberts *or* Kennedy, not necessarily both.

 

Fingers crossed.

 

Yep, four votes.

 

Also, from the Supreme Court rules:

 

Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion. A petition for a writ of certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons. The following, al­though neither controlling nor fully measuring the Court’s discretion, indicate the character of the reasons the Court considers:

 

(a) a United States court of appeals has entered a deci­sion in conflict with the decision of another United States court of appeals on the same important matter; has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a state court of last resort; or has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a de­parture by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power;

 

(b) a state court of last resort has decided an impor­tant federal question in a way that conflicts with the decision of another state court of last resort or of a United States court of appeals; 

 

© a state court or a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that 

has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, or has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court. 

 

A petition for a writ of certiorari is rarely granted when the asserted error consists of erroneous factual findings or the 

misapplication of a properly stated rule of law.

 

With Peruta, Richards and Baker in the 9th, and Moore in the 7th, if they go strictly by Rule 10, we should get a grant. 

Will there be any audio that will be available on this matter?

No the conference tomorrow is top secret.

No the conference tomorrow is top secret.

 

Correct. Even the clerks aren't allowed to attend.

If it's not heard the outcome is obvious. Don't count on Scalia and Roberts. They're both big-government Republicans. 100% minus.

 

If by some stroke of luck they decide to hear the case -- and that's nowhere near certain -- it's equally obvious that in the case of a 4-5 decision to hear it we lose. Nobody's changing their mind on this issue. 94.281777323% minus.

 

If it's a 5-4 decision to hear it, and nobody dies before September except for those three liberal hags, and assuming they're not just playing around, we win. 53.92843205938% plus.

 

If you're putting money on this, your own money, keep your bet to $20 or less because it's fairly hopeless.

 

In short, we are fukced. 

 

Move out of this pathetic state. NOT JUST FOR GUNS....for everything. Just move out. 

If it's not heard the outcome is obvious. Don't count on Scalia and Roberts. They're both big-government Republicans. 100% minus.

 

If by some stroke of luck they decide to hear the case -- and that's nowhere near certain -- it's equally obvious that in the case of a 4-5 decision to hear it we lose. Nobody's changing their mind on this issue. 94.281777323% minus.

 

If it's a 5-4 decision to hear it, and nobody dies before September except for those three liberal hags, and assuming they're not just playing around, we win. 53.92843205938% plus.

 

If you're putting money on this, your own money, keep your bet to $20 or less because it's fairly hopeless.

 

In short, we are fukced. 

 

Move out of this pathetic state. NOT JUST FOR GUNS....for everything. Just move out.

 

There is no 4-5 or 5-4 to hear it. If 4 justices say yes, it's heard. Doesn't mean the other 5 all said no.

 

Mipa.....  your excused from this conversation.....   

LOL....Funny!!!!

I vote (RELUCTANTLY) option "A". They will simply DENY this case and play it 'safe' and let each respective state and their respective Circuits decide on however they have already decided and ruled upon and do not disturb whatever status quo they see as already in place.

 

 

Whether or not they grant cert, I will say this - the Court typically does not let circuit splits stand. You can't have one circuit ruling one way and another ruling the other way. That simply will not stand for very long. So if it's not our case, it will be some case, and I predict sometime soon. It might even be Pantano from the NJ Supreme Court, or Peruta/Richards/Baker out of the 9th. But this has to be resolved one way or the other. We have ONE constitution and circuit splits seriously undermine that.

 

Move out of this pathetic state. NOT JUST FOR GUNS....for everything. Just move out. 

 

You'd need a new job too. Can't EDC if your job is in a restricted state. 

 

But easier said than done, especially if you own a home. 

By the way, if it is heard, legal experts are expecting a similar decision to Peruta. Peruta used the same reasoning and historical analysis as Heller.

By the way, if it is heard, legal experts are expecting a similar decision to Peruta. Peruta used the same reasoning and historical analysis as Heller.

Which legal experts?

Given the compelling case in Peruta and the asinine reasoning in Drake, I don't see how they can rule against us, but I've learned to be very cynical of our judiciary.

Which legal experts?

Given the compelling case in Peruta and the asinine reasoning in Drake, I don't see how they can rule against us, but I've learned to be very cynical of our judiciary.

 

I can't remember where I saw it, might have been Volokh. 

Will we know by today if SCOTUS decides to hear it?? The suspense is killing me.

Will we know by today if SCOTUS decides to hear it?? The suspense is killing me.

X2

 

I'm checking the forums just about every 15 minutes

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

X2

 

I'm checking the forums just about every 15 minutes

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Same here.  Having a very unproductive day... haha

Gee, I have not had this much exciting anticipation since waiting for the Governor to veto those bills on his deck last august! Lol

Went and bought a Ruger LCP yesterday just in case.

Will we know by today if SCOTUS decides to hear it?? The suspense is killing me.

 

Monday most likely.

 

There's an extremely slim chance we will know today. But I wouldn't count on it.

There is no 4-5 or 5-4 to hear it. If 4 justices say yes, it's heard. Doesn't mean the other 5 all said no.

If only four justices are interested in hearing it, that implies that five were not. That they were happy to let current law stand. If that's the case, the chances of one or more coming over to the side of sanity after hearing the case are slim to none. We will lose 4-5. 

 

I believe they won't hear the case. The two immigrant law-and-order northeast Republicans (Alito and Scalia) are by no means sure votes. By no means. And don't be surprised, if they do hear the case, that one or the other or both write an opinion, separate from that of the four liberals, opinion upholding NJ law.

If only four justices are interested in hearing it, that implies that five were not. That they were happy to let current law stand. If that's the case, the chances of one or more coming over to the side of sanity after hearing the case are slim to none. We will lose 4-5. 

 

 

It doesn't mean that at all.  A justice's decision to take a case can have no bearing on how they'll decide.  Did you ever consider that the 4 libs may vote to grant cert because once and for all they want to limit Heller and McDonald to home only.  And while Kennedy and Roberts may believe that the right to bear arms means just that, they may feel that this case does not belong in the supreme court.  But if cert is granted, they would be likely to vote their belief. 

It doesn't mean that at all.  A justice's decision to take a case can have no bearing on how they'll decide.  Did you ever consider that the 4 libs may vote to grant cert because once and for all they want to limit Heller and McDonald to home only.  And while Kennedy and Roberts may believe that the right to bear arms means just that, they may feel that this case does not belong in the supreme court.  But if cert is granted, they would be likely to vote their belief. 

 

 

I don't know the mechanism by which the justices decide. Does everyone secretly write their vote on an index card, which they all pull out of their robes on the count of three?

 

Or do they announce their votes consecutively, through a roll call? If this is the case, it would take balls for a liberal to be the fourth and deciding vote.

 

Or do they sit around and debate it, to the point where everyone knows what everyone else will do?

 

In my opinion the only good outcome would result from the five non-liberals eagerly deciding to hear the case. 

If only four justices are interested in hearing it, that implies that five were not. That they were happy to let current law stand. If that's the case, the chances of one or more coming over to the side of sanity after hearing the case are slim to none. We will lose 4-5. 

 

I believe they won't hear the case. The two immigrant law-and-order northeast Republicans (Alito and Scalia) are by no means sure votes. By no means. And don't be surprised, if they do hear the case, that one or the other or both write an opinion, separate from that of the four liberals, opinion upholding NJ law.

What I was trying to say, and I'll admit I don't know for sure, but if they get the 4 votes, they got the 4 votes. Not sure it is announced whether all 9 voted yes or 4 voted yes and 5 voted no or they just announce they will take it.

 

I don't think they go into that much detail.

What I was trying to say, and I'll admit I don't know for sure, but if they get the 4 votes, they got the 4 votes. Not sure it is announced whether all 9 voted yes or 4 voted yes and 5 voted no or they just announce they will take it.

 

I don't think they go into that much detail.

Many of their conferences are mysterious and private. Probably quite a bit of psychology going on with a case this important.

most suspenseful weekend ...ever

^^^^

This

Heller and McDonald were far more important. As much as I want Drake to go through, the other ones were far more important and suspenseful.

Same here.  Having a very unproductive day... haha

 

 

Gee, I have not had this much exciting anticipation since waiting for the Governor to veto those bills on his deck last august! Lol

 

 

most suspenseful weekend ...ever

 

I'm going away this weekend just to have something to do other than think about this.   I'm 7 years old and it's Christmas morning and this year, I might get coal.

Heller and McDonald were far more important. As much as I want Drake to go through, the other ones were far more important and suspenseful.

Please explain. The DC ruling didn't help us and, as far as I can see, didn't do much for Washingtonians either. You heard about the guy who was dragged into court because of a non-functional shotgun round?

 

This thread has totally ignored one outcome. Let's say everything goes rosy and, some time this fall, every newspaper in NJ runs the headline, "SCOTUS Rules Against NJ Gun Laws."

 

We will all be happy.

 

But the scumbags who occupy our legislature will not be happy. They will drag their feet, delay, and introduce equally draconian requirements that will require another court case. The lower courts will decide that the new restrictions don't violate the SCOTUS ruling, and it will go back to the Supremes, who by then (around 2022 or so) will be 7-3 liberal. You can guess the outcome.

I'm going away this weekend just to have something to do other than think about this. I'm 7 years old and it's Christmas morning and this year, I might get coal.

I hear you man. Im about to drive an hour to Pa tommorow just to eat a bangin cheese steak and visit friends just to occupy myself haha..and of course...break in my IWB holster

 

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk