US Supreme Court OT 2019

I really like the wording that Comm2A used in the Amicus brief. It was definitely well thought out.
That was great read, good job Comm2A!
We (Comm2A) simply re-hashed what we did for this case years ago when it was in the state court system. We think we have a compelling perspective on this issue and we're trying to get it in front of the courts.
 
Just read the Amicus Brief—nice job Comm 2A! Interesting twist that Atty. Healey based the 2016 “enforcement notice” on copyright and patent-infringement law, i.e making it as intentionally vague and pliable as possible!
 
Cert denied in Guedes. Dissent by Gorsuch. Read it here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/030220zor_l5gm.pdf (Page 10)

Chevron’s application in this case may be doubtful for other reasons too. The agency used to tell everyone that bump stocks don’t qualify as “machineguns.” Now it saysthe opposite. The law hasn’t changed, only an agency’s interpretation of it. And these days it sometimes seems agen-cies change their statutory interpretations almost as oftenas elections change administrations.
 
Is this good or bad?

They didn't cram it down the lowers courts' throats, so it's not great. Hopefully they're just waiting for another, stronger, case to come up. Hopefully.

The agency used to tell everyone that bump stocks don’t qualify as “machine guns.” Now it says the opposite. The law hasn’t changed, only an agency’s interpretation of it. And these days it sometimes seems agencies change their statutory interpretations almost as often as elections change administrations. How, in all this, can ordinary citizens be expected to keep up—required not only to conform their conduct to the fairest reading of the law they might expect from a neutral judge, but forced to guess whether the statute will be declared ambiguous; to guessagain whether the agency’s initial interpretation of the law will be declared “reasonable”; and to guess again whether a later and opposing agency interpretation will also be held “reasonable”? And why should courts, charged with the independent and neutral interpretation of the laws Congress has enacted, defer to such bureaucratic pirouetting?

Despite these concerns, I agree with my colleagues that the interlocutory petition before us does not merit review.The errors apparent in this preliminary ruling might yet be corrected before final judgment. Further, other courts of appeals are actively considering challenges to the same regulation. Before deciding whether to weigh in, we would benefit from hearing their considered judgments—provided, of course, that they are not afflicted with the sameproblems. But waiting should not be mistaken for lack of concern.
 
Last edited:
So much for Gorsuch I guess....I’ll read the dissent after work today.

Well, I reserve judgment on calling foul on him for this one. This interlocutory case has some issues and I'm hoping this is just a matter of waiting for one of the other, better cases to wend its way up to them. Ruling on a crummy case can be pretty bad, too.
 


🐯
 
"In any event, the court emphasized, it “will continue to proceed with the resolution of all cases” that have already been argued this term. The justices are expected to issue orders from today’s conference online on Monday morning at 9:30 a.m., followed by opinions in argued cases at 10 a.m. "


A decision in NYSRPA v. City of New York would help pass the quarantine time a little more easily. With the country's attention focussed on COVID-19, it would be a perfect time to drop a "controversial" decision in this case. It would be pretty hard for the general public to give a crap about a gun control paradigm-shifting decision.
 


Yeah they probably figured Ginsburg is so frail she could become infected through video conferencing.

🐯
 
Back
Top Bottom