Skip to comments.Supreme Court Orders and Opinions
Posted on 06/23/2008 7:20:18 AM PDT by TexasRedeye
The Court has announced that it will release opinions against (sic) at 10am Wednesday.
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
Based on recent form these figure to be very depressing results.
“The Court has announced that it will release opinions against (sic) at 10am Wednesday.”
WTH does this mean, opinions against?
The only opinion remaining from the March sitting is Heller. The only Justice without a majority opinion from that sitting is Justice Scalia.
Keep your powder dry.
Opinions are historically released on Mondays. The word “against” is a typo. Should read “...again on Wednesday”. This is to clear cases here at the end of the sitting term. Heller is the only case remaining from March sittings. Six other cases are pending (according to the site). The Supremes have announced they will likely release more opinions on Thursday.
Against individual RKBA, or against the gun grabbers?
I’m waiting for their decision on the mexicans on death row. Bush supports the un’s Court of Criminal Justice over our laws. It was sent to the SC
The only Justice without a majority opinion from that sitting is Justice Scalia.
sic is referring to a misspelling- the writer typed ‘against’ when he mean ‘again’.
Did the blog just tip off how SCOTUS was going to rule in Heller?
"Against" is a typo - just like "mean" regardless of intent of the writer. The word "mean" is a valid word but it is still a typo!
I hope so!
Did the blog just tip off how SCOTUS was going to rule in Heller?
First of all, there's no hard and fast rule that every single Justice must write a majority opinion for at least one case each term. Think about it: what if that Justice NEVER was in the majority for that term?
Second, the Chief Justice decides who writes the majority opinion. On really big cases the Chief Justice often takes it for himself.
Third, and most importantly, Scalia may not be in the majority in the Heller case - there simply are no guarantees, no matter how favorable the arguments may have seemed in March, as the vast majority of the decision-making is based on the prior court record and the written briefs filed before oral arguments.
OK, so none of the above appears very positive for our side. I'm just spelling out why we can't be assured that Scalia will be writing the majority opinion in Heller, even if we win. FWIW, I do think we'll win - "win" being defined as "DC loses and the 2nd is ruled to protect an individual right." I don't know how much more we can reasonably expect - from ANY Court. Typically, decisions are made on the most narrow basis possible (typically, though not always), and especially with a divided Court you're not likely to see a strong and broad opinion of (for example) strict scutiny being applied to all situations where a government limits firearms rights. I would certainly LIKE to see such a result, but I'm not holding my breath.
Oh I hope it comes down to him on that decision, that would be very good news indeed.
True, but only if he is in the majority. If he is not, the senior justice in the majority assigns the opinion.
eeegads, it’s Monday!
With McCain elected there is still a good chance he can get an appointment or 2! With pressure from conservatives he will appoint good people. Worst case scenario, dems block all appointments and the next election will be all about the Supreme Court.
This is where Rush is WRONG!!! If McCain gets in, we could claim a HUGE victory, if only nobody gets nominated.
NOBODY APPOINTED TO THE COURT OVER NEXT 4 YEARS WOULD BE A HUGE VICTORY!!!! This is why I vote for McCain
With Obama it`s all but over!!!!!
For those who missed it:
D.C. vs. Heller
The Supreme Court Gun Control Case
Media Briefing Book
If they go against Heller, than it stands to reason that the Bill of Rights has nothing to do with We, The People. It'll mean that the 1st Amendment allows for the state to speak freely about itself. How could it mean otherwise if they decide that the 2A is about the state?
They CAN'T freaking choose this Amendment is for The People oh, and THIS one is for ther state.
God help us all.
Check out the link. The first sentence of the second paragraph pretty much addresses both of your concerns.
Yes. We will have to act accordingly. It will show that we Constitutional conservatives have been routed and that the government is fully in control of leftists. We will be then, effectively, a Republic in Name Only.
I think for many people it will be an important psychological breaking point. Whether and when to continue to cooperate with the RINO States of America will be a constant question we will have to ask each other. What forms of resistance to tyrany will be most effective? How much of America do we want to win back?
if they go against Heller..... Buy every single gun, magazine, spare part, ammo, etc. you can get your hands on.....today!!! Then send your wife to buy shovels, pucks, and 5” wide PVC pups.
frigging auto spell checker......PICKS/PIPES
How the sam hill did I miss that? I had a USSC google alert just for that decision.
I was actually presented with the fact pattern before knowing anything about the case, and I made the exact same argument as CJ Robert's opinion - go me! :-P
Kudos from me. I don't see how it could have gone any differently. I know Gingsberg(spel?) thinks we should follow international laws. Stupid byotch, her job would be eliminated if that were to happen.
why do we want 5” pvc pubs? What exactly do they do?
Seal up rifles/shotguns in them and seal/bury them for a rainy day. Be sure to include the dry packs to soak up moisture.
opinions against America and for Euros
Best face we can put on it at this point. He's not shown great response in the past to pressure from conservatives, why would he start *after* he's elected President? Especially considering his age, which might make him a one termer.
Actually, it does. The Court tends to share the love when it comes to assigning opinions. If Scalia weren’t writing Heller, he most likely would have been given ANOTHER case from that sitting to write, because that’s just the way the Court (whether the CJ or the senior justice if CJ is not in the majority) does things. That’s just the way it goes.
Unless you know more than the folk who write the SCOTUSblog, it hardly seems to be fantasy. To quote them:
"It does look exceptionally likely that Justice Scalia is writing the principal opinion for the Court in Heller the D.C. guns case. That is the only opinion remaining from the sitting and he is the only member of the Court not to have written a majority opinion from the sitting. There is no indication that he lost a majority from March. His only dissent from the sitting is for two Justices in Indiana v. Edwards. So, thats a good sign for advocates of a strong individual rights conception of the Second Amendment and a bad sign for D.C."
“It does look exceptionally likely that Justice Scalia is writing the principal opinion for the Court in Heller the D.C. guns case. That is the only opinion remaining from the sitting and he is the only member of the Court not to have written a majority opinion from the sitting.”
Put in context that leads to quite a different conclusion than the isolated sentence we had before.
I’m sorry, what I meant to say from my previous post is that it looks like they may not be guaranteed to write a majority opinion but it looks like the way the blogger writes is that usually every judge gets to write one majority and one minority opinion per sitting. While not bound by law, perhaps that is how it usually works.
I think that you misunderstood my thoughts. I merely stated that Scalia is not guaranteed to write ANY majority opinion in ANY session of the Court. Why? First, because he has to BE PART OF THE MAJORITY. If he's on the losing side in Heller, then he won't write the majority opinion, PERIOD. Second, even if he's part of the majority, the Chief Justice (who, I'll assume, will vote the same way in this case) decides who's going to write the majority opinion. He could name himself, Scalia, Thomas or anyone else.
I, too, would be ecstatic if Scalia got to write the majority opinion, because:
a) That would mean that the DC gun ban has been overturned;
b) That the 2nd would HAVE to have been recognized as protecting an individual right; and
c) That one of the most conservative Justices would be writing for us, a man who's writing is very powerful and persuasive.
Let's hope that Scalia DOES write the majority opinion, while at the same time understanding that there's no guarantee of that EVEN IF gun owners win in Heller.
I’m uncharacteristically optimistic about Heller. Before cert was granted I was, and remain, a steadfast opponent to suing for our gun rights. In my view, it’s a “hail Mary” strategy that is as likely to backfire as anything.
Why the optimism? Because judges are politicians. And if you’re on the SCOTUS, chances are you’re a smart politician.
My prediction: a solid win. Not a complete win, but something that will keep gunnies coming back to the courts for several years.
We should know by the end of the week whether my optimism is misplaced.
Might, is something to hang on to :) what have we got to lose. It may just be that the unholy gang of 14 might help him get a John Roberts type through?
If someone had told us a few years ago that the Dems would allow Alito and Roberts on the court??? Not sure I would have believed it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.