Washington Question on SCOTUS and upcoming cases

[quneur]

There are cases being discussed in committee. Whether or not the SCOTUS actually takes up the case is another story but if they do and rule in favor of the plaintiffs, would this effectively eliminate I-1639? The cases in question are Worman v. Healey and Wilson v. Cook County,

The then proposed initiative I-1639 was meant to target 'AWB' and if SCOTUS rules in favor for gun rights then what happens to I-1639 considering all initiatives must be a single issue? What I mean is since all initiatives must be a single issue and one part (what the initiative supposedly target) is ruled unconstitutional then the entirety must be scraped ( yearly background and HIPPA checks, new handgun regulations, etc.)?

Read More

 

[ma96782]

IMHO....
The "games will start" by playing with so-called severability clauses that are frequently included with such BIG laws.

Aloha, Mark

PS..... what is that?

"A severability clause tells what happens when part of a contract is unenforceable. ... An example of this type of severability clause follows: If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, it shall not affect the enforceability of any other provision of this Agreement."

And it also happens with laws (not only contracts). But, this wouldn't happen if the legislatures just would quit inserting their own "words/ideas" onto the simple words of our Constitution. Because the 2nd A doesn't say.....

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless I say it's reasonable.

 

[CedarGlen]

A favorable opinion in either Worman or Wilson will, in most cases, still require follow up litigation against similar laws in other jurisdictions. Unless of course those jurisdictions announce that they'll no longer enforce those AWB provisions.

I don't know anything about WA initiative process, however, I suspect you would have to first challenge the AWB provisions of I-1639 based upon the SCOTUS opinion. Then you'd need to argue in state court that the rest of I-1639 should fall as well. That's a state law issue, not a constitutional issue.

I've been involved with both petitions, but I don't think the court will hear them. They'll take a carry petition before an AWB petition.

 

[CedarGlen]

Just for the record, the court didn't act on any of the ten pending cert petitions from Friday's conference. All relisted for 5/21. We wait.

 

[CedarGlen]

Just for the record, the court didn't act on any of the ten pending cert petitions from Friday's conference. All relisted for 5/21. We wait.

Relisted again for the 5/28 conference.

 

[CedarGlen]

Relisted again for the 5/28 conference.

Order List is out. Expect another relist.

 

[Stomper]

What is this, a tin can on the street or what?!

 

[CedarGlen]

What is this, a tin can on the street or what?!

I know.... But relists are actually good.

 

[Stomper]

I know.... But relists are actually good.

It's better than... DENIED!

 

[Slobray]

I know.... But relists are actually good.

It's better than... DENIED!

Kicking the can down the road is just their way of denying them, without actually denying them. This way, certain Justices get to pander to the billionaires/political parties to whom they are beholden to and some get to play politics.

Here's the way I see it:

Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch, all want to take firearm cases and finally define the limits/limitations of the 2A.​

​

The four leftists would love a chance to abolish/invalidate/neuter the 2A, but won't take any of these cases, because for the most part, they are the minority and don't want to take the chance of the Constitution being upheld in any meaningful way and having a precedent set, that they don't like.​

​

Chief Justice Roberts loves to play politics and seems to cater to the party in charge of the White house (a fine is a tax), so I think he's waiting to see how November goes, before making up his mind.​

​

Justice Kavanaugh wants to be seen as a "moderate/wild card" just like Roberts, so he's following the lead of the Chief Justice and also playing politics, except publicly and to both sides of the aisle; he concurs with the majority to moot NYSRPA vs NY (so no decision can be made), then in the same breathe throws a bone to gun owners by agreeing with part of Justices Thomas', Alito's and Gorsuch's dissent that Heller and McDonald aren't being "properly" applied and saying the court might take a 2A case in the near future. As I've stated before, I'm not sure if I trust Kavanaugh on 2A cases...... National - No Mystery to Supreme Court Nominee Kavanaugh's Gun Views​

​

I have the bad feeling that all of the pending 2A cases are in limbo and will not be either taken up or denied, anytime soon.



Ray

 

[CedarGlen]

All relisted for 6/4. That means we'll be checking the Order List again at 6:30 Monday morning.

Kicking the can down the road is just their way of denying them, without actually denying them. This way, certain Justices get to pander to the billionaires/political parties to whom they are beholden to and some get to play politics........

You may be right, but I don't think so. If they do deny all ten petitions, get ready for some very angry dissents.

There's a lot going on here. The vote of four justices is required in order to grant cert for a petition. For something like this, I don't think four are going to agree to grant cert unless they think they have a fifth vote. Then we have the issue of ten petitions. There may very well be four or five votes to grant cert on these issues, but there might not be four justices that agree on which petition(s) to hear. There are some horses to be traded here.

Finally, the Second Amendment is not the only thing on the Court's agenda right now. There are about ten qualified immunity petitions that the justices are wrestling with. Although not in the public eye, this is a huge issue especially in the aftermath of George Floyd's death. The Court is also trying to wrap up this term and is a little behind their normal pace of releasing opinions. If they're going to wrap it up by the end of June, which is customary, they need to step it up.

 

[CHLChris]

I'm afraid that Chief Justice Roberts is drifting leftward. There are no examples of SCOTUS justices drifting rightward that I know of, but numerous examples (Stevens, Souter, O'Connor) of them drifting leftward, against individual freedoms. Roberts no longer is looking like an ally of gun rights supporters, unfortunately.

 

[Slobray]

You may be right, but I don't think so. If they do deny all ten petitions, get ready for some very angry dissents.

I agree, they won't deny them (or for that matter, grant cert). My point was, that by leaving all these petitions in limbo, they don't have to make a decision and it keeps them all off the hot seat.

There's a lot going on here. The vote of four justices is required in order to grant cert for a petition. For something like this, I don't think four are going to agree to grant cert unless they think they have a fifth vote. Then we have the issue of ten petitions. There may very well be four or five votes to grant cert on these issues, but there might not be four justices that agree on which petition(s) to hear. There are some horses to be traded here.

That's a very strong possibility, especially, as @CHLChris pointed out, Roberts leftward slide.



Ray

 

[CHLChris]

If we are lucky enough for horses to be traded over which of the 10 to grant cert, then at least we might be getting something. All 10 are pretty great cases if any of them go our way!

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Chief Justice Roberts loves to play politics and seems to cater to the party in charge of the White house (a fine is a tax), so I think he's waiting to see how November goes, before making up his mind.​

​

Justice Kavanaugh wants to be seen as a "moderate/wild card" just like Roberts, so he's following the lead of the Chief Justice and also playing politics, except publicly and to both sides of the aisle; he concurs with the majority to moot NYSRPA vs NY (so no decision can be made), then in the same breathe throws a bone to gun owners by agreeing with part of Justices Thomas', Alito's and Gorsuch's dissent that Heller and McDonald aren't being "properly" applied and saying the court might take a 2A case in the near future. As I've stated before, I'm not sure if I trust Kavanaugh on 2A cases...... National - No Mystery to Supreme Court Nominee Kavanaugh's Gun Views​

​

I have the bad feeling that all of the pending 2A cases are in limbo and will not be either taken up or denied, anytime soon.

USSC justices are appointed for life. They do not take campaign donations. There's absolutely no reason that they would "play politics". I think the only reason you are seeing any stalling is that neither side trusts Roberts to be on their side. When it comes to the 2A and many other things, Roberts is unpredictable. Both sides fear taking these cases and having him flip to one side or the other. Our best hope is that Trump gets to appoint one more solid constructionist justice before he leaves office.

 

[cigars]

USSC justices are appointed for life. They do not take campaign donations. There's absolutely no reason that they would "play politics". I think the only reason you are seeing any stalling is that neither side trusts Roberts to be on their side. When it comes to the 2A and many other things, Roberts is unpredictable. Both sides fear taking these cases and having him flip to one side or the other. Our best hope is that Trump gets to appoint one more solid constructionist justice before he leaves office.

Your points are valid. The question that comes to mind is, what do TPTB have on Roberts? Most folks have written him off as a conservative when he gave the blessing on Obamacare. He's done very little to regain faith since then from the conservative crowd. Yes I know, requires some aluminum foil.... (sigh, as usual).

 

[gmerkt]

What I mean is since all initiatives must be a single issue and one part (what the initiative supposedly target) is ruled unconstitutional then the entirety must be scraped

In Washington state. This requirement seems to apply in practice only to right-leaning issues, which often get scuttled on this point. When it comes to left-leaning issues, the justices seem to ignore it. I-1639 is a classic case in point; look at how many aspects it touches on. A liberal jurist would say, "Oh but they all somehow have something to do with guns." On the other hand, look at how the court has repeatedly gutted Tim Eyman's work. It's all about reduction of taxes but the jurists pick those apart something fierce. Because it assails the entrenched establishment rice bowl.

I'm afraid that Chief Justice Roberts is drifting leftward.

We have another Earl Warren on our hands.

There's absolutely no reason that they would "play politics". I think the only reason you are seeing any stalling is that neither side trusts Roberts to be on their side.

I strongly disagree. You undermine your own argument by saying, "neither side trusts Roberts to be on their side." Which is pure politics in action. Because they are appointed and not elected is no bar to their holding strong partisan political views. Appointments to the court are important in particular because they are not accountable to any electorate.

 

[CedarGlen]

Are the justices political or not? It all depends upon the lens through which you view their decisions. At their core, the dominant judicial philosophy on the court is consequentialism. All of the justices (except perhaps Thomas) care very much about the consequences of their votes. I just don't see any of them voting where they think the law or Constitution demands if they're don't like the consequences of that vote.

Politics plays a very important role in how the justices get to where they are. First, they're appointed by politicians. They don't get plucked out of obscurity because of their judicial record. They're active in politics, they suck up to politicians and they, or their people, actively lobby to get on that short-list. They, like the rest of us have political and policy opinions. They cannot help but keep those out of their opinions.

This is especially true of Roberts. He is a conservative and he's playing a long game to drive the court to the right. But, he cares deeply about the reputation and credibility of the court, And, he is, in my opinion, on a long term campaign to create a reputation for himself as one of the great chief justices. These considerations drive his actions, not a philosophical drift to the left. He doesn't get that much credit.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Your points are valid. The question that comes to mind is, what do TPTB have on Roberts? Most folks have written him off as a conservative when he gave the blessing on Obamacare. He's done very little to regain faith since then from the conservative crowd. Yes I know, requires some aluminum foil.... (sigh, as usual).

That is the only leverage anyone would have against a USSC justice. I firmly believe that Epstein's operation was a Clinton operation to get dirt on numerous people in high offices world-wide. If he were not working for or with the Clintons he would not have survived as long as he did.

 

[CedarGlen]

No Second Amendment grants on today's order list. There are three more conference days left in this term. We'll know by month's end assuming that the term ends on schedule and that they don't hold petitions over into OT2020.

For the impatient, just remember they're busy. They still have about 10 qualified immunity petitions pending and 20 decisions to release over the next three weeks.