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!
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
US Supreme Court OT 2019
- Thread starter Comm2A
- Start date
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
Supreme Court Procedures
Background Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court of the United States. Currently, there are nine Justices on the Court. Before taking office, each Justice must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Justices hold office during good behavior...
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.
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:
For anyone not following the NYSRPA specific thread, the argument was yesterday - transcript here. Josh Blackman's thoughtful commentary: Overview of Oral Arguments in NYS Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York
Comm2A hopes to have a new website up and running in the next 24 hours. It will have an active SCOTUS 'Scoreboard' for the current term.
Comm2A hopes to have a new website up and running in the next 24 hours. It will have an active SCOTUS 'Scoreboard' for the current term.
No. The Commonwealth's response in Worman (AWB) is due on the 9th. I update this chart pretty regularly: OT2019
We can add another AWB petition to the shadow docket: Wilson v. Cook County (19-704)
QP:
Full shadow docket here.
QP:
Full shadow docket here.
xtry51
NES Member
This seems like a pretty solid case. Which is why the court won't take it.
hv55maxx
NES Member
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
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,820
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.
xtry51
NES Member
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."
VetteGirlMA
NES Member
Hasn't this issue above been decided, unanimously I might add by the Commonwealth vs Caetano case?
xtry51
NES Member
We wait 6-12 months while people's rights are continuously trampled and then SCOTUS declines to take the case because they are not going to strike down AWBs.
In Wilson? From my post in the Worman thread: ( Worman v. Baker - AWB Challenge.) Petitioners will file a reply brief and then the petition will be scheduled for conference. I fully expect that SCOTUS will not take any action until later in the term. There's another AWB challenge petition (Wilson). They won't likely deal with the backlog until the deal with NYSRPA and Wilson gets to conference.
I was referring to Worman after having ready the Healey response in entirety. Thank you for the clarification. Sounds like a long shot for the Supreme court to take this one further but I sure hope I'm wrong!
The same holds true for Worman. I think it very unlikely that SCOTUS will hear an AWB case this term. The best we can hope for is a GVR after the rule in NYSRPA (or a carry case if NYSRPA is mooted). What I can see happening is the court deciding NYSRPA (or another) and stating some generalized rule about evaluating 2A claims. They might then GVR some cases on the shadow docket in light of this new rule, giving lower courts an opportunity to make a new ruling. Depending upon the high court's ruling, lower courts could work around any new rule and still rule against us. None of this will happen quickly and none of it will happen in a straight line.
The Medina petition was denied on Monday - probably because the court doesn't like Gura.
Garys
NES Member
The Supreme Court bar is pretty clubby and Gura isn't part of that club. The court also favors petitions from certain attorneys. They like Paul Clement. This term Clement has argued more cases that all of the female attorneys combined. Gura is also a little brash and a PITA. They don't like that. The issue at stake in Medina is an on-going one. There will be many more opportunities for the court to rule on misdefelonies.
Garys
NES Member
I'd like to think that they'd be above that pettiness, but I'd be wrong. As I recall, Paul Clement is a former Solicitor General. Given his CV, he's clearly a "made man" in the DC legal arena.
Interesting read!
