it's official. this sucks.  i was really hoping for good news.  

it's official. this sucks.  i was really hoping for good news.

 

Yes, but at least it hasn't been denied.

it's official. this sucks.  i was really hoping for good news.  

 

well at least its not bad news 

As they say...no news is good news.

OK, it's all very clear:

 

http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=204909

says Drake vs. J. is still pending

 

and

 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/

 

clearly lists April 25 as the next date when they may get to this matter.

 

So let's all hold our horses for a week. If they get to it we'll have a lot to say either way. Until then there's not much to post here that hasn't already been posted.

OK, it's all very clear:

 

http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=204909

says Drake vs. J. is still pending

 

and

 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/

 

clearly lists April 25 as the next date when they may get to this matter.

 

So let's all hold our horses for a week. If they get to it we'll have a lot to say either way. Until then there's not much to post here that hasn't already been posted.

 

Unless they issue a "miscelaneous order" in the mean time. That's quite possible. And given the hightened "awareness" due to the Boston Marathon, I can see that as a reason to delay this order from publication until after it's over.  Or, it could be for any number of reasons.... But it doesn't necessarily mean they didn't take it up or haven't reached a ruling....  they just haven't published it yet.

 

Question:  What does it mean for the Court to relist a case?

Answer:  When a case is “relisted,” that means that it is set for reconsideration at the Justices’ next Conference.  Unlike a hold, this will show up on the case’s electronic docket.  A relist can mean several things, including the fairly straightforward prospect that one or more Justices wants to take a closer look at the case; that one or more Justices is trying to pick up enough votes to grant review (four are needed); that the Justices are writing a summary reversal (that is, a decision that the lower court opinion was so wrong that the Court can decide the case on the merits without briefing or oral argument); or that one or more Justices are writing a dissent from the decision to deny review.

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2014/04/supreme-court-still-pondering-new-jersey-gun-rights-case/

OK, it's all very clear:

 

http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=204909

says Drake vs. J. is still pending

 

and

 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/

 

clearly lists April 25 as the next date when they may get to this matter.

 

So let's all hold our horses for a week. If they get to it we'll have a lot to say either way. Until then there's not much to post here that hasn't already been posted.

I follow the scotusblog link, but can you give more info on how to follow your April 25 date on  www.supremecourt.gov?  thanks

I follow the scotusblog link, but can you give more info on how to follow your April 25 date on  www.supremecourt.gov?  thanks

If you follow the link there is a calendar on the home page.  4/25 is shaded green which mean conference day.  For some reason Scotusblog's calendar doesn't show this.

I follow the scotusblog link, but can you give more info on how to follow your April 25 date on  www.supremecourt.gov?  thanks

 

click link. Look at calendar. Green dates are conference days. Those are days when cert grant and denials are announced (usually). 

If the next conf. day is Friday 4/25 we hold our breath until the Monday after 4/28 when they announce what was determined... Correct?

This is not a f'ing game show, and I wish our courts would stop treating it as such.

They were supposed to decide on it today. Instead, they heard dozens of far lower profile cases and continue to toy with, what to anyone with a brain, should be straightforward.

 

I liked the idea of them writing a summary judgment, slapping down the 3CA opinion without even a hearing. I doubt that's what's happening, but I can fantasize.

This is not a f'ing game show, and I wish our courts would stop treating it as such.

They were supposed to decide on it today. Instead, they heard dozens of far lower profile cases and continue to toy with, what to anyone with a brain, should be straightforward.

 

I liked the idea of them writing a summary judgment, slapping down the 3CA opinion without even a hearing. I doubt that's what's happening, but I can fantasize.

yep! No one ever accused our law makers of being capable of making obvious decisions though lol... waiting sucks!

Just. Can't. Wait. Another. Weeeeeek. 

 

They were supposed to decide on it today.

 

Not really. They were supposed to discuss it on Friday, and thats it. They don't have to decide crap on our schedule. They can way a year if they want to. 

If you look at the list of what they did decide NOT to hear, I'll take the alternative of waiting another week in hopes that they will grant cert.

Just. Can't. Wait. Another. Weeeeeek.

Don't you mean 'weeeeiak'?

 

I don't see this as a huge issue. Scotus has a ton of cases to hear and a limited time to hear them. It'll probably come up on next weeks conference docket. How ever I'm not confident it will be heard in front of the court and we'll be stuck with horrible 'justifiable neeiad!'

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

supremecourt.gov lists Friday April 25 as new day for conference. 

 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/13-827.htm

There was a write-up on Friday about the case on reason.com, still on the front page. Good site for those who haven't seen it.

I liked the idea of them writing a summary judgment, slapping down the 3CA opinion without even a hearing. I doubt that's what's happening, but I can fantasize.

Wouldn't that be great!

 

 

They don't have to decide crap on our schedule. They can way a year if they want to. 

Yes, that's the sad reality of it.  But as some have said, at least it hasn't been denied.

There was a write-up on Friday about the case on reason.com, still on the front page. Good site for those who haven't seen it.

 

Wow that was a good read. Thanks!

 

Link:

 

http://reason.com/archives/2014/04/18/is-this-the-supreme-courts-next-big-gun

It seems to me that in order to make the least amount of political hay, they would summarily overturn Drake without additional arguments.  This would allow the status quo to exist in other cases without creating new precedent.   This would have the effect of eliminating justifiable need in NJ, but not necessarily addressing "Proper cause" and "“good and substantial reason” in NY and MD respectively.   At that point, they could be re-litigated, but it wouldn't upset the entire apple cart in one go.

 

I'm not a lawyer though, they don't think like humans.

 

Question:  What does it mean for the Court to relist a case?

Answer:  When a case is “relisted,” that means that it is set for reconsideration at the Justices’ next Conference.  Unlike a hold, this will show up on the case’s electronic docket.  A relist can mean several things, including the fairly straightforward prospect that one or more Justices wants to take a closer look at the case; that one or more Justices is trying to pick up enough votes to grant review (four are needed); that the Justices are writing a summary reversal (that is, a decision that the lower court opinion was so wrong that the Court can decide the case on the merits without briefing or oral argument); or that one or more Justices are writing a dissent from the decision to deny review.

 

The optimist in me hopes that  the Justices are writing a summary reversal, since we all know that the third Circuit Court Based on complexly idiotic reasoning. The pessimist in me says that a few of the Justices don't want to hear the case because the only honest answer is to overturn the previous court, but doing so is going to force the over turn of a bunch of other laws that while unconstitutional they don't want to see over turned.

The pessimist in me says that a few of the Justices don't want to hear the case because the only honest answer is to overturn the previous court, but doing so is going to force the over turn of a bunch of other laws that while unconstitutional they don't want to see over turned.

 

Absolutely. The justices who wish to hear the case, and possibly to overturn the lower court's decision, may be Republicans, and they may be vilified in the press as "ultra right-wing conservatives," but they are not all libertarians. Remember Kelo vs. New London. That case, from the perspective of constitutional law, was at least as important as this one. 

 

I'm telling you, beware northeast law-and-order justices of immigrant stock who wave the constitution when it suits them.

It is not that simple. If they let the wording of the 3ed Circuit court stand, they basically tell the world that Scotus is no longer important to the world. That decision is bad for them. 

 

I'm not saying that politics and court vote trading don't exist or that they will take the case, I just think it would be suicidal for them to not take the case. The 5 people who voted to say Heller is a thing and the McDonald applies to the states would have to sit back and say "ok but not really" which I find unlikely. 

^^I'm with Vlad on this.

 

And besides, this whole thing reminds me of Animal Farm, where some Pigs are MORE EQUAL than others.......

It is not that simple. If they let the wording of the 3ed Circuit court stand, they basically tell the world that Scotus is no longer important to the world. That decision is bad for them. 

 

I'm not saying that politics and court vote trading don't exist or that they will take the case, I just think it would be suicidal for them to not take the case. The 5 people who voted to say Heller is a thing and the McDonald applies to the states would have to sit back and say "ok but not really" which I find unlikely. 

You're giving the court way too much credit. If they believed in the 2nd amendment's plain language, at some point this group would have welcomed a true test case. The court is as political as any other branch of government. The "conservatives" wave the constitution around and talk of original intent. Then they give you the Kelo ruling. 

 

These are all big-government guys. Were Roberts' contortions to pass Obamacare not sufficient evidence? The second amendment is not a big deal to them. They feel, "46 states already have liberal concealed carry laws. If NJ wants them they'll elect representatives to reflect that desire." 

 

CC is a relatively recent phenomenon. Despite the 2nd Amendment's wording, shall-issue CC was not considered a "constitutional right" until relatively recently. Most states obtained CC through legislative action, not by court order. 

Would you people really quit this shit with Obamacare? It pisses me off to  no end that people fail to see that Obamacare is constitutional. A ton of bad laws are constitutional, just because you don't like it, it doesn't change the facts. The Constitution is far from perfect anyway. Go read any of the serious law sites about it, they all agree the decision was correct, regardless how bad the law was.  It is not the job nor the authority of SCOTUS to protect you from bad laws, only from illegal ones. 

 

I'm giving the court credit to serve their best interest. It is NOT in their best interest to nullify their own position. This is not about 2A or your right or anything else when you boil it down, it is about the authority of SCOTUS as the final word. If they let the 3ed's decision stand as it is, that is what it is at stake. They might still do it, but they are not blind to the implication. 

 

Guess what, the 2A is a a big deal to them. They took two huge cases in the last 6 years and made huge changes to the jurisprudence via those two cases. Arguably those two cases were one of the biggest changes to the US legal system in 50 years, The last incorporation was in '63. 

Would you people really quit this shit with Obamacare? It pisses me off to  no end that people fail to see that Obamacare is constitutional. A ton of bad laws are constitutional, just because you don't like it, it doesn't change the facts. The Constitution is far from perfect anyway. Go read any of the serious law sites about it, they all agree the decision was correct, regardless how bad the law was.  It is not the job nor the authority of SCOTUS to protect you from bad laws, only from illegal ones. 

 

I'm giving the court credit to serve their best interest. It is NOT in their best interest to nullify their own position. This is not about 2A or your right or anything else when you boil it down, it is about the authority of SCOTUS as the final word. If they let the 3ed's decision stand as it is, that is what it is at stake. They might still do it, but they are not blind to the implication. 

 

Guess what, the 2A is a a big deal to them. They took two huge cases in the last 6 years and made huge changes to the jurisprudence via those two cases. Arguably those two cases were one of the biggest changes to the US legal system in 50 years, The last incorporation was in '63.