Other State Hochel's gonna get a spanking - SCOTUS taking up GOA petition

[Yarome]

In the SC emergency petition, filed by GOA, against the 2nd districts reversal of the stay on NY's flipping off of the SC... the SC has responded. Basically demanding that the state of NY provide a reason, by no later than Jan 3rd, why SCOTUS should not vacate the 2nd districts ruling to vacate the lower courts stay on the new NY safety improvement act.

Great news! But wait... the justice currently overseeing the petition is not at all 2A friendly and may still choose to side with the 2nd districts ruling.

But wait!! Even if she does, GOA will still have the option to request a "do-over" by a justice of their choosing to review their petition again.

Can anyone think of another SCOTUS Justice they might choose that might be favorable to bending hochul over and tanning her hide for flipping them off??

One guess! And... Go!!


This will have a major impact throughout the nation. A clear shot across the bow of all those other judges that currently see fit to throw Bruen the finger. *cough* *cough* immergut *cough*

Read More

 

[Mark W.]

Justice Thomas always looks pissed off LOL

 

[Alexx1401]

When these morons do this they should have to pay. They have to be wasting a ton of tax payer cash doing this. The idiots who decide to just do it anyway because its not their money should be hit with helping pay for it. See how fast they want to do it next time. It of course will never happen.

 

[Diamondback]

When these morons do this they should have to pay. They have to be wasting a ton of tax payer cash doing this. The idiots who decide to just do it anyway because its not their money should be hit with helping pay for it. See how fast they want to do it next time. It of course will never happen.

If Trump had had balls he would have ordered Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law charges against these buttcheeses during his term. Get some Big Red F's and paper hung on them that DQ's them from further office.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

In the SC emergency petition, filed by GOA, against the 2nd districts reversal of the stay on NY's flipping off of the SC... the SC has responded. Basically demanding that the state of NY provide a reason, by no later than Jan 3rd, why SCOTUS should not vacate the 2nd districts ruling to vacate the lower courts stay on the new NY safety improvement act.

Great news! But wait... the justice currently overseeing the petition is not at all 2A friendly and may still choose to side with the 2nd districts ruling.

But wait!! Even if she does, GOA will still have the option to request a "do-over" by a justice of their choosing to review their petition again.

Can anyone think of another SCOTUS Justice they might choose that might be favorable to bending hochul over and tanning her hide for flipping them off??

One guess! And... Go!!


This will have a major impact throughout the nation. A clear shot across the bow of all those other judges that currently see fit to throw Bruen the finger. *cough* *cough* immergut *cough*

Apparently NY has submitted their response. It should be available on court listener maybe? I don't know how to find it. John Crump said he will release a video on it it tomorrow morning.

 

[Yarome]

Apparently NY has submitted their response. It should be available on court listener maybe? I don't know how to find it. John Crump said he will release a video on it it tomorrow morning.

Yeah.. a few days ago. Here ya go...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22A557/251278/20230103154502214_22A557%20Br%20in%20Opposition.pdf

Basically told SCOTUS to piss off and mind their own business.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Yeah.. a few days ago. Here ya go...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22A557/251278/20230103154502214_22A557%20Br%20in%20Opposition.pdf

Basically told SCOTUS to piss off and mind their own business.

Thanks! Just skimmed it and it sounds like a lot of legal maneuvering (such as historical tradition does not apply) but little substance from what I can see at first glance (5 min skim). Hopefully someone with legal background can summarize that goblygook. 4 boxes diner guy would probably be ideal for that. Maybe he already has a video out for that matter. I saw crumps little video blurb and assumed it just came out but if it was on the 3rd there may be a video on it. I get confused there are so many going on.

 

[nehalemguy]

Basically told SCOTUS to piss off and mind their own business.

Sounds like a winning strategy.

-E-

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Excellent analysis on NY response to SCOTUS in the video below. Basically he is saying NY AG can't argue on the merits so she is saying "they don't have standing" and "Bruen is so new that we have to wait until it can be applied". Both of which are 100% BS and I think NY is gonna get B!tch Slapped big time (insert bag of popcorn emoji here).

 

[Yarome]

Could you imagine a defense attorney taking the same approach in a criminal defense hearing in NY? "Well... this new law has only been a law for a few months now so the charges should be dismissed since the people and the legal professions haven't had sufficient time to kick it around and really determine yet what that law really means."

I half hope sotomayor doesn't reverse the appeals court. Get Saint Thomas in there to apply extreme momentum behind his pointed steel toed boots in the direction of some gaping woke derriere's.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Anti-gun crusader judge Immergut in Oregon (likely at the direction of the CA 9th circuit) and NY state seem bound and determined to test how much they can get away with post-Bruen.

But Bruen only reinforced what already existed with Heller, McDonald, etc and made clear that courts were supposed to protect individual's rights, not balance those rights away for a so-called societal good. The anti gunners have no solid ground left to stand on, so they invent sh!t up, like these technicalities to try to get it thrown out. It's the only play they have left, and it's a damn weak one.

 

[Yarome]

Anti-gun crusader judge Immergut in Oregon (likely at the direction of the CA 9th circuit) and NY state seem bound and determined to test how much they can get away with post-Bruen.

But Bruen only reinforced what already existed with Heller, McDonald, etc and made clear that courts were supposed to protect individual's rights, not balance those rights away for a so-called societal good. The anti gunners have no solid ground left to stand on, so they invent sh!t up, like these technicalities to try to get it thrown out. It's the only play they have left, and it's a damn weak one.

True. In doing so too though they are placing SCOTUS in a position to HAVE to respond. If they accept the bogus arguments they basically green light every jurisdiction to ignore SC rulings (aka: supreme rule of law) at will.

Their woke sentiments are biting off more than they can chew, but I doubt they realize it. Spend too much time in a one party bubble running roughshod over the citizenry and reality of the world around them distorts upon itself.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Agree. While this one the court has already taken up, for other cases it seems to me the court looks at how divided they will be before accepting a case or not.

If it's really divided they might not hear the case. But in instances like this it seems the case is not hearing a case on "left wing issue #1", or "right wing issue #2" . They are hearing a case on "will SCOTUS have any teeth at all in the future, will we allow states to openly disregard the law". And no matter what their political leaning are, I would think that the justices would be united on the issue that the Supreme Court has meaning. It's the very foundation of what they are/what role they have in our government, and the rule of law that are being "attacked". My guess is they will stand united on that front. Which is a powerful thing. I hope New York "feels their wrath".

 

[nehalemguy]

True. In doing so too though they are placing SCOTUS in a position to HAVE to respond. If they accept the bogus arguments they basically green light every jurisdiction to ignore SC rulings (aka: supreme rule of law) at will.

Their woke sentiments are biting off more than they can chew, but I doubt they realize it. Spend too much time in a one party bubble running roughshod over the citizenry and reality of the world around them distorts upon itself.

Chief Justice Robert's year-end report is a déjà vu moment....."remember that one time in Arkansas?"

https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2022year-endreport.pdf

-E-

 

[CamoDeafie]

 

[Diamondback]

True. In doing so too though they are placing SCOTUS in a position to HAVE to respond. If they accept the bogus arguments they basically green light every jurisdiction to ignore SC rulings (aka: supreme rule of law) at will.

Their woke sentiments are biting off more than they can chew, but I doubt they realize it. Spend too much time in a one party bubble running roughshod over the citizenry and reality of the world around them distorts upon itself.

Sounds to me like the game is to get the Left to push these Trains To Crazytown as fast as they can to provoke massive SCOTUS backlash.

 

[Yarome]

Not so great news, but not all that bad in the long term.

Sotomayor decided not to overturn the district courts ruling, however, requiring them to make an expedited decision on the matter. Not a big shock there.

The better news is that Judge Thomas and Alito chimed in on the ruling telling GOA not to be deterred and... basically... if the district court doesn't go the right way as it should to bring it back to SCOTUS and Thomas and Alito will make it right.

All in all... respecting the jurisdiction of the district court to quickly follow through with the case, but a warning to get it right and fix this.... or THEY will.

 

[titsonritz]

So more of a finger wagging than a spanking.

 

[DivCurlGrad72]

Sotomayor decided not to overturn the district courts ruling, however, requiring them to make an expedited decision on the matter. Not a big shock there.

Sounds like normal practice:

The Supreme Court doesn't ordinarily intervene in cases before lower-court litigation concludes, and the action might not be the justices' final word on the matter. After the Second Circuit makes its decision, the losing side could appeal to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Allows New York Gun Law to Stand for Now

The Supreme Court declined to block enforcement of new gun regulations New York state enacted in July after the justices ruled that a previous state law requiring individuals to demonstrate ‘proper cause’ to obtain concealed-weapons permits violated the Second Amendment.

www.wsj.com

 

[street]

Mark Smith has a solid take on this.

SUPREME COURT RULING: Court Denies Emergency Relief but Sends CLEAR 2A MESSAGE to "Inferior" Courts