US Supreme Court OT 2019

Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
56
Likes
4
Healey has until December 9th to file a response arguing that SCOTUS should NOT grant cert.
I apologize but can you explain what this means? What does "cert" mean? Is it possible the SCOTUS would grant in the favor of WORMAN on the 9th if Healeys response is not logical? If that was the case would her AR ban be no more? This is all fascinating, I am just confused!
 

CatSnoutSoup

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 9, 2015
Messages
2,961
Likes
5,372
Location
Westgardminsterham MA
I apologize but can you explain what this means? What does "cert" mean?



Writs of Certiorari
Parties who are not satisfied with the decision of a lower court must petition the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their case. The primary means to petition the court for review is to ask it to grant a writ of certiorari. This is a request that the Supreme Court order a lower court to send up the record of the case for review. The Court usually is not under any obligation to hear these cases, and it usually only does so if the case could have national significance, might harmonize conflicting decisions in the federal Circuit courts, and/or could have precedential value. In fact, the Court accepts 100-150 of the more than 7,000 cases that it is asked to review each year. Typically, the Court hears cases that have been decided in either an appropriate U.S. Court of Appeals or the highest Court in a given state (if the state court decided a Constitutional issue).

The Supreme Court has its own set of rules. According to these rules, four of the nine Justices must vote to accept a case. Five of the nine Justices must vote in order to grant a stay, e.g., a stay of execution in a death penalty case. Under certain instances, one Justice may grant a stay pending review by the entire Court.

🐯
 

milktree

NES Member
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
4,365
Likes
1,747
I apologize but can you explain what this means? What does "cert" mean? Is it possible the SCOTUS would grant in the favor of WORMAN on the 9th if Healeys response is not logical? If that was the case would her AR ban be no more? This is all fascinating, I am just confused!
Healey’s response in this case is not on the core merits, but rather her reasons why SCOTUS should not take the case (grant cert)

If she doesn’t respond, or her reasons are stupid, SCOTUS is more likely to take the case.

This is an opportunity for Healey to try to stop the process before it is heard by SCOTUS. If she’s successful, that would be a win for her.

If they take the case, then they will decide on the core arguments, and could decide in favor of Worman or in favor of Healey.
 
Last edited:

Knuckle Dragger

NES Member
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,112
Likes
3,407
Location
My forest stronghold

Knuckle Dragger

NES Member
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,112
Likes
3,407
Location
My forest stronghold
We can add another AWB petition to the shadow docket: Wilson v. Cook County (19-704)

QP:
  1. Whether the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution allows a local government to prohibit law-abiding residents from possessing and protecting themselves and their families with a class of rifles and ammunition magazines that are “in common use at [this] time” and are not “dangerous and unusual.”
    [*]Whether the Seventh Circuit’s method of analyzing Second Amendment issues – a three-part test which asks whether (1) a regulation bans weapons that were common at the time of ratification or (2) those that have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia and (3) whether law-abiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense – is consistent with this Court’s holding in Heller.
Wilson was originally an Illinois state court case serveral years ago. Comm2A submitted an amicus brief when that case went to the Illinois Supreme Court. Attorney David Sigale started a similar case for the federal courts and now that case is ready for SCOTUS.

Full shadow docket here.
 
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
20,225
Likes
8,431
Location
NH (CT Escapee)
We can add another AWB petition to the shadow docket: Wilson v. Cook County (19-704)

QP:
Wilson was originally an Illinois state court case serveral years ago. Comm2A submitted an amicus brief when that case went to the Illinois Supreme Court. Attorney David Sigale started a similar case for the federal courts and now that case is ready for SCOTUS.

Full shadow docket here.
This seems like a pretty solid case. Which is why the court won't take it.
 

hv55maxx

NES Member
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
2,247
Likes
484
Location
Northwest Assachusetts where the dragons be
Healey's response to the Worman petition.

two things right off the bat.
-"used disproportianately in mass public shootings and killings of police officers..." facts to back that up? becuase FBI crime stats negate that.
-"barred the transfer and possession..." you could transfer a pre ban just the same as you can now, except for dealer, correct?

lying out the gate here. you guys better call her on that
 
  • Like
Reactions: CAR

m_n_x

NES Member
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Jun 10, 2013
Messages
434
Likes
229
Location
Bridgewater, MA
two things right off the bat.
-"used disproportianately in mass public shootings and killings of police officers..." facts to back that up? becuase FBI crime stats negate that.
-"barred the transfer and possession..." you could transfer a pre ban just the same as you can now, except for dealer, correct?

lying out the gate here. you guys better call her on that
Well, here's the thing... They are used disproportianately. However it's disproportianately LESS, not disproportianately MORE.
 

terraformer

NES Member
Rating - 100%
31   0   0
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
16,823
Likes
2,272
two things right off the bat.
-"used disproportianately in mass public shootings and killings of police officers..." facts to back that up? becuase FBI crime stats negate that.
-"barred the transfer and possession..." you could transfer a pre ban just the same as you can now, except for dealer, correct?

lying out the gate here. you guys better call her on that
Fast and Loose with the facts is that AAG's stock in trade. She was the same one in Morin who said you could possess a handgun on an FID in the home and is now telling the court in Morin II that yes, in fact one can't possess a handgun on an FID in the home.
 
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
20,225
Likes
8,431
Location
NH (CT Escapee)
Just read it. Nothing shocking in there. They are basically hoping the number of previous lower court cases not taken up is enough legal momentum to preclude this case from being taken up. Basically "we've been doing this for such a long time you should just let us keep doing it."

Healey's response to the Worman petition.
 
Top Bottom