ctdonath
Member
Plurality? There have been postulations that the court may have a 3-way split (say, 3-4-2 "shall not be infringed" vs. "reasonable restrictions" vs. "pure collective right"), with the largest lowest common denominator prevailing.
Heller links and updates
- Thread starter txgho1911
- Start date
- Status
AntiqueCollector
Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2007
- Messages
- 842
"The Chief Justice has announced from the courtroom that the Court will issue all of its remaining opinions tomorrow at 10 a.m. Eastern."
Tomorrow is the day...
Tomorrow is the day...
Airman193SOS
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2007
- Messages
- 267
Great, it's my wife's birthday. Hopefully it'll be a good day for both of us.
Um, wow?
Um, wow?
Seminole
Member
Implications?
dirtbos
Member
dirtbos
Member
Per Wikipedia
"It is crucial to note that plurality opinions are not binding. They are often treated as majority opinions, because by the time a similar case is considered, a 5th Justice has come around. However, in reality, they are just interesting dicta, showing continued flux and ambivalence on the part of the Court."
The part of the decision we are interested in may be of no consequence. :banghead:
"It is crucial to note that plurality opinions are not binding. They are often treated as majority opinions, because by the time a similar case is considered, a 5th Justice has come around. However, in reality, they are just interesting dicta, showing continued flux and ambivalence on the part of the Court."
The part of the decision we are interested in may be of no consequence. :banghead:
BlisteringSilence
Member
OK, so everyone is talking about a plurality decision. If you don't know what that is, here you go.
In other words, the decision of the lower court is upheld, but the reason for such is not agreed upon by a majority of the court (5 or more), but simply a plurality of the court (3 or more). If you agree with the decision, but not with the reasoning for such decision, and you write a concurring opinion, you can still vote for the affirmation of the decision (the district court's decision is upheld), but not agree with the majority opinion (which is widely believed to be written by Justice Scalia).
What it means is that the case thats decided doesn't really get entered into the canon of law, as the SCOTUS gives no majority guidance to the underlying courts.
answers.com said:
In other words, the decision of the lower court is upheld, but the reason for such is not agreed upon by a majority of the court (5 or more), but simply a plurality of the court (3 or more). If you agree with the decision, but not with the reasoning for such decision, and you write a concurring opinion, you can still vote for the affirmation of the decision (the district court's decision is upheld), but not agree with the majority opinion (which is widely believed to be written by Justice Scalia).
What it means is that the case thats decided doesn't really get entered into the canon of law, as the SCOTUS gives no majority guidance to the underlying courts.
leadcounsel
member
Plurality explained
http://law.wustl.edu/journal/4/Hochschild.pdf
If 5 out of 9 agree on a rationale, it is a majority decision. If less than 5 agree on a rationale, then there is a plurality decision. It's effectively a fractured opinion.
http://law.wustl.edu/journal/4/Hochschild.pdf
If 5 out of 9 agree on a rationale, it is a majority decision. If less than 5 agree on a rationale, then there is a plurality decision. It's effectively a fractured opinion.
arthurcw
Member
UGH!
Edit: so if I read all this correctly, if may be all for nothing.
BlisteringSilence
Member
This is somewhat misleading. The decision of the Court to uphold or reverse the lower court's decision is absolutely binding. There is no precedent set, however, leaving the issue open to interpetation by lower courts, and being revisited by the SCOTUS.
ctdonath
Member
ctdonath
Member
As noted a few posts above, there is a separate thread to discuss the "plurality" issue.
Please* keep this thread limited to factually informative links and updates, just as the title indicates.
(* - Yes, I'm not a moderator, and I rarely pick this way. Thing is there's a LOT of people (me included) looking to this thread for factual updates, and don't want to paw thru prolific pontifications when there are plenty of other threads to do so.)
Please* keep this thread limited to factually informative links and updates, just as the title indicates.
(* - Yes, I'm not a moderator, and I rarely pick this way. Thing is there's a LOT of people (me included) looking to this thread for factual updates, and don't want to paw thru prolific pontifications when there are plenty of other threads to do so.)
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
As ctdonath noted, this thread is to LINK to ongoing discussion threads on a specific aspect of Heller or to post an UPDATE of what has happened.
The idea is to keep the mass of Heller information easy to find and well organized. Random commentary in this thread doesn't help; but feel free to start a thread in Legal on a specific issue (in this case plurality opinions) and post the link to that thread here.
The idea is to keep the mass of Heller information easy to find and well organized. Random commentary in this thread doesn't help; but feel free to start a thread in Legal on a specific issue (in this case plurality opinions) and post the link to that thread here.
ctdonath
Member
The verdict on Heller will be released today between 10:00AM and 10:30AM (sooner more likely than later).
The primary/popular site announcing results promptly is SCOTUSblog, which will provide a live update of events. (45 minutes early and I'm already getting errors on that page.)
Alternately, you can watch the same feed here if the former link is unavailable.
NOTE: Once either page is loaded, you do NOT have to refresh your browser for updates. Updates will be sent to your browser and displayed automatically. (Excessive refreshing of the page will degrade performance for everyone.)
Please realize that usage levels will be very high. Please be patient! When the full text of the ruling is first released, please consider refraining from immediately downloading it unless you are going to immediately re-distribute it; let the document spread before we melt down the servers.
PLEASE also refrain from subsequent commentary on this LINKS AND UPDATES thread. A single posting announcing the result, and a few posts announcing alternate sources for the text, will make this thread much more useful than a proliferation of rants one way or another. Plenty of discussion threads will appear immediately after the verdict is announced, please keep the discussions there.
The primary/popular site announcing results promptly is SCOTUSblog, which will provide a live update of events. (45 minutes early and I'm already getting errors on that page.)
Alternately, you can watch the same feed here if the former link is unavailable.
NOTE: Once either page is loaded, you do NOT have to refresh your browser for updates. Updates will be sent to your browser and displayed automatically. (Excessive refreshing of the page will degrade performance for everyone.)
Please realize that usage levels will be very high. Please be patient! When the full text of the ruling is first released, please consider refraining from immediately downloading it unless you are going to immediately re-distribute it; let the document spread before we melt down the servers.
PLEASE also refrain from subsequent commentary on this LINKS AND UPDATES thread. A single posting announcing the result, and a few posts announcing alternate sources for the text, will make this thread much more useful than a proliferation of rants one way or another. Plenty of discussion threads will appear immediately after the verdict is announced, please keep the discussions there.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
General discussion of today's SCOTUSBlog live coverage of the Heller decision may be found here:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=373244
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=373244
ctdonath
Member
5-4 in our favor.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
10:13 Ben Winograd -
The Court has released the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), on whether the District’s firearms regulations – which bar the possession of handguns and require shotguns and rifles to be kept disassembled or under trigger lock – violate the Second Amendment. The ruling below, which struck down the provisions in question, is affirmed.
Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg. We will provide a link to the decision as soon as it is available.
10:13 Tom Goldstein - Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm.
The Court has released the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), on whether the District’s firearms regulations – which bar the possession of handguns and require shotguns and rifles to be kept disassembled or under trigger lock – violate the Second Amendment. The ruling below, which struck down the provisions in question, is affirmed.
Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg. We will provide a link to the decision as soon as it is available.
10:13 Tom Goldstein - Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm.
Flyboy
Member
0:13
Ben Winograd -
The Court has released the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), on whether the District’s firearms regulations – which bar the possession of handguns and require shotguns and rifles to be kept disassembled or under trigger lock – violate the Second Amendment. The ruling below, which struck down the provisions in question, is affirmed.
Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg. We will provide a link to the decision as soon as it is available.
Ben Winograd -
The Court has released the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), on whether the District’s firearms regulations – which bar the possession of handguns and require shotguns and rifles to be kept disassembled or under trigger lock – violate the Second Amendment. The ruling below, which struck down the provisions in question, is affirmed.
Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg. We will provide a link to the decision as soon as it is available.
pogostick
Member
10:12
Tom Goldstein - Heller affirmed.
10:13
Ben Winograd -
The Court has released the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), on whether the District’s firearms regulations – which bar the possession of handguns and require shotguns and rifles to be kept disassembled or under trigger lock – violate the Second Amendment. The ruling below, which struck down the provisions in question, is affirmed.
Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg. We will provide a link to the decision as soon as it is available.
10:13
Tom Goldstein - Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm.
Tom Goldstein - Heller affirmed.
10:13
Ben Winograd -
The Court has released the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), on whether the District’s firearms regulations – which bar the possession of handguns and require shotguns and rifles to be kept disassembled or under trigger lock – violate the Second Amendment. The ruling below, which struck down the provisions in question, is affirmed.
Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg. We will provide a link to the decision as soon as it is available.
10:13
Tom Goldstein - Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm.
Educated Hillbilly
Member
10:14 Tom Goldstein - It is striking that the decision is not clouded by ambiguity created by separate opinions. One opinion on each side.
10:16 Tom Goldstein - Apologies - there is a second dissenting opinion, but only one majority - no plurality and no concurrences.
10:16 Tom Goldstein - Apologies - there is a second dissenting opinion, but only one majority - no plurality and no concurrences.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Thanks to everyone who posted updates or links to other discussions concerning Heller.
GENERAL DISCUSSION OF HELLER DOES NOT BELONG IN THIS THREAD - IT IS FOR LINKS AND UPDATES ONLY - THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION SO THAT I MAY READ THE DECISION INSTEAD OF DELETING POSTS EVERY 5 SECONDS
GENERAL DISCUSSION OF HELLER DOES NOT BELONG IN THIS THREAD - IT IS FOR LINKS AND UPDATES ONLY - THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION SO THAT I MAY READ THE DECISION INSTEAD OF DELETING POSTS EVERY 5 SECONDS
trapperjohn
Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2004
- Messages
- 567
yes, the decision is affirmed by majority
ctdonath
Member
Punkermonkey
Member
Today's opinion by Justice Scalia - addresses MILLER!!!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked