berettaprofessor
Member
DonP, whatever far off land you live in, I can't reach it from here....but I'd like to.
Heller: Plurality option?
- Thread starter ctdonath
- Start date
- Status
I think the Scotus has been drawing it out because it gets more interest in the court system and the government overall, which they have stated in the past is rather lacking.
How many non-gun Supreme Court cases have you read since they took up Heller? I haven't missed one since March, myself.
My fantasy is similar except it continues:
The SCOTUS asks Heller to do a "special favor" for them: Lead an Open Carry Parade through the streets of Washington D.C. ....
In all seriousness - I would be very dissapointed in a plurality opinion. I want solid stone to stand on!
Thumper
Member
Now a Commemorative Heller 1911 is an idea I can get behind. I want the Ginsberg edition.
romma
Member
Remember, this is the same court that brought us the Guantanamo ruling the other day, and the Kelo decision with one exception being Alito...
I am skeptical, and I cannot help it!
I am skeptical, and I cannot help it!
This is a historic case which will affect the rights of individuals for decades, but there are other such cases before the court. Some of those cases involve someone's life or freedom being immediately in jeopardy.
Nothing necessarily has to be read into Heller going last.
Nothing necessarily has to be read into Heller going last.
I'm not very familiar with the "behind the scenes" workings of the SCOTUS in the way they acheive votes on a particular opinion but is the following possible? The delay is because the majority opinion is being written in a way as to get the most votes possible? Like the wording needs to be changed a little to get an extra vote? Just curious???
CJ Roberts
Chief Justice Roberts has said that he would be leading the court to more consensus as time moved on. So far this season that has been true, with more majority opinions by greater agreement and fewer 5-4 decisions. So far this season(07-08) there have been 15% (9 opinions) of 5-4 decisions, versus 33%(24 opinions) 5-4 decisions in the 2006-2007 decision.
Another comparison is that this season (2007-2008) there were 72% (44 cases) with only 2 justices or less disagreeing. Last season (2006-2007) that percentage was 62%.
So perhaps the wait has been to get disagreements debated and resolved rather than each justice "taking their football and going home" to write a differing opinion.
Chief Justice Roberts has said that he would be leading the court to more consensus as time moved on. So far this season that has been true, with more majority opinions by greater agreement and fewer 5-4 decisions. So far this season(07-08) there have been 15% (9 opinions) of 5-4 decisions, versus 33%(24 opinions) 5-4 decisions in the 2006-2007 decision.
Another comparison is that this season (2007-2008) there were 72% (44 cases) with only 2 justices or less disagreeing. Last season (2006-2007) that percentage was 62%.
So perhaps the wait has been to get disagreements debated and resolved rather than each justice "taking their football and going home" to write a differing opinion.
It's written; it's at the printer's. I'm sure there's more to writing an opinion than writing an opinion. Someone has to write a detailed summary, all the citations have to be checked, the document has to be formatted, the printer has to print it, notice to the parties probably needs to be prepared and transmitted, etc. If the Court said it will be issued tomorrow, I'm sure it will be.
Cosmoline
Member
You misunderstand me. The delays in trying to reach consensus could have delayed the final draft which in turn led it to be the last one issued. It's done now, whatever it is.
But who knows. It may be they just went in that order.
But who knows. It may be they just went in that order.
Sebastian the Ibis
Member
Pyle-
There are a bunch of books that came out recently that do a great job of explaining the inner workings of the Supreme Court.
The Nine, by Jeffrey Toobin and Supreme Conflict, by Jan Crawford Greenburg are both very good. So is Bob Woodwards new book, and his old one the Breatheren.
There is also Its a Matter of Interpretation by Scalia and Active Liberty by Breyer that explains their individual thought processes.
Reading the first 3 books is about as good as taking a Law School Constitutional Con Law class.
There are a bunch of books that came out recently that do a great job of explaining the inner workings of the Supreme Court.
The Nine, by Jeffrey Toobin and Supreme Conflict, by Jan Crawford Greenburg are both very good. So is Bob Woodwards new book, and his old one the Breatheren.
There is also Its a Matter of Interpretation by Scalia and Active Liberty by Breyer that explains their individual thought processes.
Reading the first 3 books is about as good as taking a Law School Constitutional Con Law class.
mbdolfin
Member
i am not trying to hijack a thread here but
i am not trying to hijack a thread here but i don't want to start another thread on this.
if the supreme court rules in our favor, how is it that it will help states like New Jersey?
NJ law supercedes all federal gun laws. this stupid state doesn't believe in private ownership of guns and they pass gun control laws like passing out candy to a 5 year old.
i am not trying to hijack a thread here but i don't want to start another thread on this.
if the supreme court rules in our favor, how is it that it will help states like New Jersey?
NJ law supercedes all federal gun laws. this stupid state doesn't believe in private ownership of guns and they pass gun control laws like passing out candy to a 5 year old.
usmarine0352_2005
member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,796
Thanks, I think I might pick "The Nine" and "Supreme Conflict" up.
How old/new are they? Could you get them from a library?
charby
Member
Maybe it will be a 9-0 decision and a few SC Justices are going to give opinions why. That would awesome and I bet Sarah Brady might have a stroke with that decision.
Deanimator
Member
NO, it DOESN'T. Let NJ pass a law mandating possession of NFA items without the NFA paperwork and see what happens.
Now NJ may BREAK THE LAW, but so do drug dealers, home invaders and child molestors. That doesn't make it legal, much less right. If the SC invalidates NJ's gun laws, that's IT. If they don't like it, let them try to secede. If (for instance) NJ's hollowpoint ban is invalidated and they arrest you for it, that's a civil tort (and possibly a Federal criminal civil rights violation). The last I heard, NJ wasn't exactly running a surplus. It's a question of how many instant millionaires NJ wants to create. Not many, I'd bet.
Cosmoline
Member
If Heller goes our way, that's the next question--whether the Second applies to the states via the 14th. It's called "incorporation." If the Second applies to the states, and NJ's laws were deemed unconstitutional, then they would be gone.
Deanimator
Member
Want to see her stroke out? Give her EXACTLY what she claims to WANT.
If you had to have licenses to own and to carry a gun in NYC, and NYC HAD to give you one, without unreasonable requirements or fees, she'd instantly fall to the ground, foaming at the mouth and twitching.
That's their nightmare scenario. The LAST thing on earth they want is "REASONABLE gun control".
BlisteringSilence
Member
pyle said:
OK. So, some time after the oral arguments, the 9 justices gather together in an informal conference. They nine are the only people present. There, they discuss the written briefs, the orals, and any other factors (existing case law, etc) that would affect their decision. At that point, a straw poll is taken on whether to affirm the lower court's judgement, or reverse it.
Based on the outcome of this poll, the justice who is going to write the majority opinion is assigned. If the Chief Justice is in the majority, he assigns the decision. If he is in the minority, then the most senior justice assigns it.
Then, the selected justice and his clerk(s) begin to draft the opinion. Depending on the justice, he (or she) may solicit input from other justices during this drafting. After a first draft is finished, it is circulated amongst the justices of the majority (and the minority if there is a justice that is on the fence), and comments are given.
This process continues until there is either a plurality (generall three or four justices), or a majority (five or more). Chief Justice Roberts stated goal is to issue more opinions with a sizeable majority, which leads to this drafting and commenting being longer than it was under the Rehnquist court.
So, yes, there is much tweaking in the wording of a decision. Since I personally* believe that CJ Roberts is sincere in his desire to have a more united court, I can see him encouraging justice Scalia to water down the decision some so that a plurality is avoided.
*my opinion and my opinion alone. if you don't like it, tough.
ctdonath
Member
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
The 14th Amendment made it clear the Bill Of Rights applies to the states, whether they liked it or not.
There is already a case on deck to address "incorporation", that is forcing the states to respect an enumerated Constitutional right.
NJ law supercedes only insofar as NJ will send teams of armed men to your door to throw you into a cage if you don't do what they say. It takes a while to get around to addressing that problem.
- Status
