Worman v. Baker (MA AWB) Oral Arguments 1-9-2019

I’m actually on a shot vacation this week. No computer, out of cell range and only very limited WiFi.

I don’t think Worman will get a cert grant. There are already too many good and less controversial petitions pending. But these issues still have to be put before the court.

We may know a lot more about pending petitions on October 2nd. I also hope to get an OT 2019 preview posted by then.

Do you think when SCOTUS denies it may be partially because of these other cases, eg, viewing them as cleaner?

-Mike
 
Do you think when SCOTUS denies it may be partially because of these other cases, eg, viewing them as cleaner?

-Mike
I think that the court doesn't want to make OT 2019 the 'gun' term. It's not that the other cases are 'cleaner', I just don't think they want to pile on all the Second Amendment (gun) issues in one term. They already have the NYC case and several held petitions from last term. Adding an AWB case to the mix this term will be too controversial. At best, they'll hold the case and remand it in light of whatever decision they make in NYC or another case. But I could be, and frequently am, wrong about these things.
 
I think that the court doesn't want to make OT 2019 the 'gun' term. It's not that the other cases are 'cleaner', I just don't think they want to pile on all the Second Amendment (gun) issues in one term. They already have the NYC case and several held petitions from last term. Adding an AWB case to the mix this term will be too controversial. At best, they'll hold the case and remand it in light of whatever decision they make in NYC or another case. But I could be, and frequently am, wrong about these things.

When you say remand is the idea that they hold onto the case, decide on some other case and then tell the court using new precedent X please re-decide this case? If C1 does this and comes back with the same conclusion say in a year would that make it more likely that the court will take it? I'm trying to understand the legal maneuvering involved.
 
I’m actually on a shot vacation this week. No computer, out of cell range and only very limited WiFi.

I don’t think Worman will get a cert grant. There are already too many good and less controversial petitions pending. But these issues still have to be put before the court.

We may know a lot more about pending petitions on October 2nd. I also hope to get an OT 2019 preview posted by then.

Wait, on a vacation doing shots, or taking a vacation from shots? If doing, I am in.
 
When you say remand is the idea that they hold onto the case, decide on some other case and then tell the court using new precedent X please re-decide this case? If C1 does this and comes back with the same conclusion say in a year would that make it more likely that the court will take it? I'm trying to understand the legal maneuvering involved.
Pretty much as you say. That's what we're hoping with Gould - that the court will hear another case and then GVR (grant-vacate-remand) Gould in light of 'our decision in x'.

If the cases are identical issues, it generally isn't going to happen that the lower court doesn't do the right thing, but it can happen. As I recall there's a murder case in California that SCOUT has remanded back to CA9 three times. The circuit keeps coming back to the same resulting using different logic each time. That's unlikely to happen here.
 
I think that the court doesn't want to make OT 2019 the 'gun' term. It's not that the other cases are 'cleaner', I just don't think they want to pile on all the Second Amendment (gun) issues in one term. They already have the NYC case and several held petitions from last term. Adding an AWB case to the mix this term will be too controversial. At best, they'll hold the case and remand it in light of whatever decision they make in NYC or another case. But I could be, and frequently am, wrong about these things.
I think this makes a lot of sense. The court is always deeply concerned with its own legitimacy. Suddenly deciding a ton of gun cases in one term, right after Kavanaugh's appointment, with decisions released during an extremely contentious presidential election year, is playing a dangerous game.

Best to move the needle more slowly, over a longer period. If the left is ascendant after the 2020 election, they're sure to pass some full retard gun laws that will be ripe to be struck down. Best to lay the groundwork for that now, rather than immediately make a bunch of strong rulings that will cause pushback in the political sphere. If they let the left lead with their stupid laws and/or executive orders after 2020, there will be very strong political pushback against it, and the court can be seen as following public opinion to some degree rather than leading it.
 
I think that the court doesn't want to make OT 2019 the 'gun' term. It's not that the other cases are 'cleaner', I just don't think they want to pile on all the Second Amendment (gun) issues in one term. They already have the NYC case and several held petitions from last term. Adding an AWB case to the mix this term will be too controversial. At best, they'll hold the case and remand it in light of whatever decision they make in NYC or another case. But I could be, and frequently am, wrong about these things.

Another possibility is that they decide to moot the NYC case in light of the change in law, and take this one up.
 
I think that the court doesn't want to make OT 2019 the 'gun' term. It's not that the other cases are 'cleaner', I just don't think they want to pile on all the Second Amendment (gun) issues in one term. They already have the NYC case and several held petitions from last term. Adding an AWB case to the mix this term will be too controversial. At best, they'll hold the case and remand it in light of whatever decision they make in NYC or another case. But I could be, and frequently am, wrong about these things.
On the other hand, it’s past time to Habeas the corpus.[smile]
 
No reason they will grant cert on this. Maybe in a couple years when Trump needs to put a RBG replacement on the court they will have something worth deciding.
 
I think this makes a lot of sense. The court is always deeply concerned with its own legitimacy. Suddenly deciding a ton of gun cases in one term, right after Kavanaugh's appointment, with decisions released during an extremely contentious presidential election year, is playing a dangerous game.

Best to move the needle more slowly, over a longer period. If the left is ascendant after the 2020 election, they're sure to pass some full retard gun laws that will be ripe to be struck down. Best to lay the groundwork for that now, rather than immediately make a bunch of strong rulings that will cause pushback in the political sphere. If they let the left lead with their stupid laws and/or executive orders after 2020, there will be very strong political pushback against it, and the court can be seen as following public opinion to some degree rather than leading it.
********
Legitimacy? From who? Oh right the leftists have sent threatening letters to the court to try to influence their opinions especially on abortion. I guess Roberts is afraid of being shunned in the DC cocktail circuit again.
 
I find it "interesting" that no one from Comm2A has commented???

Maybe they are too busy "crossing their fingers" to type an update on this thread?
Excuse me??? Comm2A is the reason this case even exists and we aren't relying on the NSSF case which is basically going to end that Healy is good to go for her BS. I spent the better part of July and August when this came down lobbying the NRA to get their support for this case. We spent our time and resources providing everything we could to the lawyers working on the case early on. We were given a chance to be plaintiffs but we don't do that any more for strategic reasons. We don't cross our fingers. We think and act long term.

ETA: I don't want the above to be taken like no one else was involved in making this case happen and having sustained it. Lot of people, the plaintiffs, GOAL, the NRA and others have committed a lot of resources to this. I was more trying to make clear that the second Healy released her stupidity, I was working on getting the attention and the resources of national orgs focused here. That we didn't join as plaintiffs is a strategic decision.
 
Last edited:
Comm2A is a handful of people who have actual day jobs and lives outside this forum and doing Comm2A stuff. I'm guessing Knuckle Dragger hasn't even seen the updates to the thread.

As you already noted, this isn't really interesting news anyways - the case arrived at SCOTUS and cert has been applied for, that's it. The only interesting thing that'll happen is SCOTUS will either grant or deny cert, and there's no way to know which way that'll go until it happens.
Yes. I also have a newborn and barely read here these days.
 
Do you think when SCOTUS denies it may be partially because of these other cases, eg, viewing them as cleaner?

-Mike
They don't have to take Worman to have an effect on the case. The lower court and circuit decision essentially said that these guns aren't covered by the 2A so the 2A is not implicated. That alone is enough for a remand but they can deal with that in another case and then remand this based on the other case. That's one scenario we expect to happen. Others exist, but that's a good one.
 
Last edited:
Excuse me??? Comm2A is the reason this case even exists and we aren't relying on the NSSF case which is basically going to end that Healy is good to go for her BS. I spent the better part of July and August when this came down lobbying the NRA to get their support for this case. We spent our time and resources providing everything we could to the lawyers working on the case early on. We were given a chance to be plaintiffs but we don't do that any more for strategic reasons. We don't cross our fingers. We think and act long term.

ETA: I don't want the above to be taken like no one else was involved in making this case happen and having sustained it. Lot of people, the plaintiffs, GOAL, the NRA and others have committed a lot of resources to this. I was more trying to make clear that the second Healy released her stupidity, I was working on getting the attention and the resources of national orgs focused here. That we didn't join as plaintiffs is a strategic decision.
Terra: you took me ALL WRONG. I meant that y'all were hard at work on this case (or others) and literally did not have time to run and update this thread. I respect all Comm2A does.
 
Get the F to work, slacker! ;)

Everyone is always so excited on TV and movies when they have a new baby. I was scared crapless all 3 times. "S-word. My life just changed. . . . again!"
 
If SCOTUS takes a serious look at the case from MA, any chance Ms. Healey would try to walk-back the "directive" like NY is trying to moot their case?
 
Can you imagine that political calculation? Walk-back some very-popular state-level gun control (taking heat from constituents all along the way) to avoid SCOTUS review, or roll the dice with a SCOTUS review and potentially see a lot of other gun control get undone . . .
 
One has to remember that the Healy directive came out during the last presidential campaign and she was stroking for a federal appointment once the Hildebeast was annointed. Funny, didn't work out that way.

It is not about making her gun ban stick, but about making her credit for it stick (that will win, rather than cost, votes in the DPRM). If SCOTUS shooters her down, no loss of credit - it's just Trump messing with the liberal agenda.
 
Last edited:
One has to remember that the Healy directive came out during the last presidential campaign and she was stroking for a federal appointment once the Hildebeast was annointed. Funny, didn't work out that way.

It is not about making her gun ban stick, but about making her credit for it stick (that will win, rather than cost, votes in the DPRM). If SCOTUS shooters her down, no loss of credit - it's just Trump messing with the liberal agenda.

This, she was trying to make last minute notoriety as an up and coming game changer, who was trying to out left the left and make a name for herself.

As basically making new legislation from the executive branch will not pass constitutional muster, she knew it would be years before a SCOTUS case was ironed out. By that time she figured she would be diddling Hillary as one of her presidential cabinet members.

But that didnt happen. Not that it matters Democrat sheep tend to not care anyway, even if she gets slapped by SCOTUS it will be the evil TRUMPster. No harm can come to her in this state of nanny sheep pussies.

What will be fulfilling is the walk back on gun control. But that will guarantee to be short lived as the a**h*** legislature will then try and take over where she left off.
 
One has to remember that the Healy directive came out during the last presidential campaign and she was stroking for a federal appointment once the Hildebeast was annointed. Funny, didn't work out that way.
.

It was like gang initiation:. show Hillary that she (Maura) could f*** over gun owners harder than anyone else.
 
This, she was trying to make last minute notoriety as an up and coming game changer, who was trying to out left the left and make a name for herself.

As basically making new legislation from the executive branch will not pass constitutional muster, she knew it would be years before a SCOTUS case was ironed out. By that time she figured she would be diddling Hillary as one of her presidential cabinet members.

But that didnt happen. Not that it matters Democrat sheep tend to not care anyway, even if she gets slapped by SCOTUS it will be the evil TRUMPster. No harm can come to her in this state of nanny sheep pussies.

What will be fulfilling is the walk back on gun control. But that will guarantee to be short lived as the a**h*** legislature will then try and take over where she left off.

And in the meantime, I (and every other MA gun owner with a brain) will be buying a couple cases of stripped lowers.
 
Back
Top Bottom