9th Circuit Strikes down Magazine Restrictions - Breaking

[Broc]

7 of the 11 are Clinton or Obama appointees. If a miracle happens and they vote to overturn the mag ban, you can bet that Bloomers will pay Nukesome a few million not to appeal. They don't want a case going to SCOTUS.

How did it end up with a majority Clinton / Obama. hmmmm... I wonder

 

[CrackPot]

How did it end up with a majority Clinton / Obama. hmmmm... I wonder

47 judges. 18 Senior and one Chief. Of the remaining 28, 13 were appointed by Rs and 15 were appointed by Ds. The chief justice is on any en banc panel. So you have an very high probability of any panel being at least 6-5 D-R if not worse. Picking 10 from 28 when 15 of the 28 are Ds to go with one guaranteed D is not good odds.

 

[Hoover]

How did it end up with a majority Clinton / Obama. hmmmm... I wonder

it’s a random drawing, it not rigged. Hurwitz is a dem appointed judge but sat on a 2A case earlier this year and seemed fairly reasonable. That case is still pending, I’m just going on the oral arguments.

Thomas was on Obama’s SCOTUS short list and is a hardcore liberal anti 2A nut. Graber, Paez, Berzon and watford are also hardcore leftists. Murguia isn’t as crazy as the others and hurwitz isn’t. But you need to get both of them and they’re definitely going to be pressured by the leftists on the court.

 

[Garys]

Similar to the IL case a few years back. The 7th CA ruled against the state on the state's refusal to issue LTCs. IL was going to appeal, but a loss at SCOTUS would likely have resulted in shall issue being the law of the land.

So, IL shut and and wrote as restrictive a law as they could get away with.

7 of the 11 are Clinton or Obama appointees. If a miracle happens and they vote to overturn the mag ban, you can bet that Bloomers will pay Nukesome a few million not to appeal. They don't want a case going to SCOTUS.

 

[fishgutzy]

Similar to the IL case a few years back. The 7th CA ruled against the state on the state's refusal to issue LTCs. IL was going to appeal, but a loss at SCOTUS would likely have resulted in shall issue being the law of the land.

So, IL shut and and wrote as restrictive a law as they could get away with.

In some CA jurisdictions is costs over $1K just to apply because they enforce a required psych eval by an approved anti-gun shrink.

 

[Hoover]

The video/audio of the hearing will be posted here probably Wednesday Audio and Video

the hearing starts at 9:30 pst. Right now there is no link posted for live streaming but if it’s available it will be here. Live Video Streaming of Oral Arguments and Events

their YouTube channel is here. https://youtube.com/c/9thCircuit/videos

Case was originally Duncan v becerra, it’s now Duncan v Bonta with the change in the CA AG. The lawyer for Duncan will either be Paul clement or Erin Murphy. Both are very experienced and excellent

 

[rommel]

Is the hearing today only an appeal to specifics of the last hearing or are all arguments on the table like it is a new case?

 

[Parker Schreiber]

Is the hearing today only an appeal to specifics of the last hearing or are all arguments on the table like it is a new case?

The en banc panel decides issues of law "de novo," so all legal arguments are on the table. Findings of fact have a much more limited scope of review.

 

[dixidawg]

That guy from Cali that opened the proceedings already is making me sick…..

 

[Matt_SERE]

"government doesn't adopt policies for problems that don't exist"

 

[JayMcB]

the tyrant's arguments are going to make me blow a blood vessel

 

[jhblaze1]

this chick is pretty sharp....but they're just going be be like "nah we like power, no normal mags for you"

 

[rommel]

I will not have time to watch the hearing today. Any general feelings bow it played out?

 

[Matt_SERE]

I will not have time to watch the hearing today. Any general feelings bow it played out?

Basic, 3rd grade readers digest opinion.

A: It was cursory hearing on the way to overturning the ruling. Reinstate the ban and we will be lucky that they stop there.

2: It was the job of "We the people" to prove we didn't deserve to be infringed upon.

 

[Dennis in MA]

Just remember, 70 years ago it was teh job of black people to prove that they had a right to be equal instead of separate-but-equal. All part of the game. In 70 years, people will wonder how we were unable to see how plain 2A was at the time.

 

[wmccurdy53]

... In 70 years, people will wonder how we were unable to see how plain 2A was at the time.

One can only hope.

 

[paul73]

SCOTUS is busy with more important matters - a 14 yr old beatch`s F bombs. Am i the only one who finds this incredibly amusing?


View: https://www.npr.org/2021/06/23/1001382019/supreme-court-rules-cheerleaders-f-bombs-are-protected-by-the-first-amendment

 

[Hoover]

I will not have time to watch the hearing today. Any general feelings bow it played out?

the links I provided earlier, the video is there. You can watch it whenever you want.

SCOTUS is busy with more important matters - a 14 yr old beatch`s F bombs. Am i the only one who finds this incredibly amusing?


View: https://www.npr.org/2021/06/23/1001382019/supreme-court-rules-cheerleaders-f-bombs-are-protected-by-the-first-amendment

there is a mag limit case from the 3rd circuit court of appeals pending cert with SCOTUS right now and they already accepted a conceal carry license case from the 2nd which they’ll hear in the fall

and the case they decided today is important. It’s not a 14yr old dropping F bombs on social media it’s a public school system aka the government trying to control a students speech outside of school. That’s a big deal and I’m glad SCOTUS ruled in favor of protecting the students 1st amendment right.

by the way, Maura Healy and all the liberal AGs filed briefs asking SCOTUS to rule in favor of the school system

 

[milktree]

by the way, Maura Healy and all the liberal AGs filed briefs asking SCOTUS to rule in favor of the school system

Of course they did.

 

[milktree]

and the case they decided today is important. It’s not a 14yr old dropping F bombs on social media it’s a public school system aka the government trying to control a students speech outside of school. That’s a big deal and I’m glad SCOTUS ruled in favor of protecting the students 1st amendment right.

 

[Mesatchornug]

View attachment 495139

Ken is awesome.

 

[FrugalFannie]

do we know when they will reach a decision?

 

[uvholic]

Doesn't mean anything for us in MA though. Cop stops you while you're carrying a G17 with a PrEbAN SqUaRE-NoTcH 17 rounder, you could very likely still be cuffed and booked for having a 'high cap'. Will take a good chunk of lawyer fees and time wasted down the drain to get yourself exonerated.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

View attachment 495139

I wasn't surprised to see Thomas was the sole dissenter. And somehow people still think he's god's gift to the Constitution.

 

[Bonesinium]

I wasn't surprised to see Thomas was the sole dissenter. And somehow people still think he's god's gift to the Constitution.

He’s not but you didn’t read the decision or his dissent, did you? I read all 42 pages and he dissented for two reasons.

The first, because the majority departed from historical precedent and he doesn’t think they gave a reason for doing so, and would have stuck with the past precedent. For this reason, he’s totally right about the majority not addressing past precedent, but I totally disagree with his belief they should have just stuck with it.

The second reason was basically a devils advocate argument, and he makes a great point. The majority opinion doesn’t do what you probably think it does. I’ll just quote Thomas here.

“In effect, it states just one rule: Schools can regulate speech less often when that speech occurs off campus. It then identifies this case as an “example” and “leav[es] for future cases” the job of developing this new common-law doctrine. But the Court’s foundation is untethered from anything stable, and courts (and schools) will almost certainly be at a loss as to what exactly the Court’s opinion today means.”

 

[Parker Schreiber]

do we know when they will reach a decision?

Not really, but in Young v. Hawaii the decision came 6 months after oral argument.

 

[Bonesinium]

SCOTUS is busy with more important matters - a 14 yr old beatch`s F bombs. Am i the only one who finds this incredibly amusing?

It’s amusing to the extend the ruling does basically nothing and provides little to no discernible direction in establishing precedent on the matter.

and the case they decided today is important. It’s not a 14yr old dropping F bombs on social media it’s a public school system aka the government trying to control a students speech outside of school. That’s a big deal and I’m glad SCOTUS ruled in favor of protecting the students 1st amendment right.

by the way, Maura Healy and all the liberal AGs filed briefs asking SCOTUS to rule in favor of the school system

Case could have been important but the rulings a total dud.

View attachment 495139

Whoever wrote that didn’t read it. I guess they are close with regards to the majority opinion but not even close about what Alito or Thomas said. Actually Alito’s concurrence (joined by Gorsuch) was actually more supportive of free speech and would have made it harder for schools to censor than the majority.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

He’s not but you didn’t read the decision or his dissent, did you? I read all 42 pages and he dissented for two reasons.

The first, because the majority departed from historical precedent and he doesn’t think they gave a reason for doing so, and would have stuck with the past precedent. For this reason, he’s totally right about the majority not addressing past precedent, but I totally disagree with his belief they should have just stuck with it.

The second reason was basically a devils advocate argument, and he makes a great point. The majority opinion doesn’t do what you probably think it does. I’ll just quote Thomas here.

“In effect, it states just one rule: Schools can regulate speech less often when that speech occurs off campus. It then identifies this case as an “example” and “leav[es] for future cases” the job of developing this new common-law doctrine. But the Court’s foundation is untethered from anything stable, and courts (and schools) will almost certainly be at a loss as to what exactly the Court’s opinion today means.”

We'll I've read it now, at least the dissent. (Reading the dissent first is an interesting way to read decisions).

I am unmoved. I find it ironic that Thomas wants to be so grounded in history and precedent when he's the justice with the least (really no respect) for stare decisis. It just supports my view that the justices and really all judges that have any latitude are at their core consequentialist. They may claim to apply a textual, or original, or whatever approach to statutory interpretation, but when you did under the covers, they're really all about the outcome.

As to Thomas's second point, the court does this all the time. Their opinions often leave more questions unaswnered the answered. And I think they do this a lot when they're trying as hard as they are to crank out 9-0 opinions. They're probably doing that here, but just couldn't get Clarence to go alone.

Wow, we're way off topic.

Do we have enough legal nerds here to start our own general SCOTUS megathread?

 

[Dennis in MA]

SCOTUS is busy with more important matters - a 14 yr old beatch`s F bombs. Am i the only one who finds this incredibly amusing?


View: https://www.npr.org/2021/06/23/1001382019/supreme-court-rules-cheerleaders-f-bombs-are-protected-by-the-first-amendment

While ham-handed, it seems like it needs to be said. The school could have just not put her on the squad after having her try out. Or telling her she's got a piss-poor attitude. They dug their heels in and got every school on notice - don't be stupid regarding what people do on Social Media outside of your little bubble of a world.

 

[xtry51]

Thomas' decent on this one was retarded. End of story