SCOTUS - 2 incorporation cases on the docket!

Status
Not open for further replies.
My big fear is for one of the 5 rational justices to unexpectedly be removed/step down/ etc. Then another liberal would be appointed and our hopes would be dashed along with the 2A.

We'll see Sotomayors 'true colors' as a 'wise Latina woman.' I'm still so disappointed with our nation for failing to hold people like Ted Kennedy, Sotomayor, and the long list of other liars, criminals, etc. accountable for what they do and say and making them into idols rather than the devils they are.

But to stay on topic, I think that as long as nothing changes we'll see incorporation with some 'reasonable restriction' language - which will be legistlated at the state level.
 
My big fear is for one of the 5 rational justices to unexpectedly be removed/step down/ etc. Then another liberal would be appointed and our hopes would be dashed along with the 2A.
Yep, it is pretty scary how easily our 2nd Amendment rights could be pulled out from under us. If one of the pro-gun justices did happen to die or retire, you can bet there would be an enormous battle over the confirmation of the replacement. Hopefully, in that situation the pro-gun Democrats would grow a backbone and stand up to any anti-gun nominee. But, in the end, we'd be screwed.
 
From a quick search on SCOTUS' el-cheap-o website (seriously, this is a separate branch of government and they can't even afford a web designer?) it took Heller 5 days from conference to announcement.

So I'm guessing by Friday or Monday we'll know if they want to take a case up.
 
.

The Court has not yet scheduled a time to consider another pending case on the Second Amendment issue — Maloney v. Rice (08-1592). The response in that case is now due on Aug. 28. The new Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, took part in the Maloney case when she was on the Second Circuit Court. Like the Seventh Circuit, the Second found that the Second Amendment only applies to federal laws. When the Justices consider the Maloney case, Sotomayor is not expected to take part. The fact that she had taken part in a ruling on the issue in one case, however, would not require her to withdraw from considering cases from other Circuits, like the Chicago cases.



Because of this could the SCOTUS just decide to hear NRA vs. Chicago and/or Maloney vs. Chicago, thus Sotomayor could join in?

.
 
I'd love to know which of the supremes (4 minimum) voted to grant cert. I'm hoping it was Roberts et al. wanting to get incorporation settled to apply to 2A before any of the conservative justices retire or die and are replaced by a liberal (non-RKBA) from O-land.

We'll see. Gura was not particularly good at oral argument last time out, I hope he does better with this one. The pleadings for the opposite side will make interesting reading if you enjoy fantasy logic.

It is interesting also that the court accepted petitioners statement of the question as presented - a simple 'yes or no' on whether and how 2a is incorporated under any of several provisions of the 14th Amendment. In Heller, they framed their own question. (Who really know if it means anything or not?)
 
Last edited:
Not really. It was decided before the orals, most likely. I suspect this will be the same. The justices, all of them, have heard all of these arguments for many years and already know where they stand. Still, anything is possible and we need every arrow in the quiver and I'd like to see him this time a little better prepared or less nervous or faster on his feet. He missed some good opportunities last time. It will be interesting.
 
They are swing votes because it's hard for us to predict where they'll come down on any particular issue. But like the others they have heard it all, sliced and diced over and over, and I'd be surprised if they don't already know for themselves. Very unlikely they'll be persueded otherwise. But, anything is possible.
 
I bet it will be the same 5-4 as Heller (sub in Sotomayor) and I also bet that the 4 rely on the same reasoning as Sotomayor did in Maloney v. Cuomo.
 
A risky bet.

Better find out where Kennedy has shown up on the theory and practice of past incorporation arguments. I'll feel better if we know he supports it in practice and principle for enumerated rights.
 
This will NOT be as easy to handicap as some feel.

The issue at hand is not just whether or not 2A should be incorporated but also the mechanism to do this.

Will it be via the 9th or the 14th or another route?

This is not a simple case of pro-gun/anti-gun, big gov/little gov, Con/Lib, Federal/State but some or all the above and as such the potential voting pattern is anything but clear cut

Come what may it will probably be one of if not the most significant constitutional cases on 2A, at least in this generation.
 
Come what may it will probably be one of if not the most significant constitutional cases on 2A, at least in this generation.

I'd put it second after Heller. Without that win incorporation is moot. Otherwise I'd say you're right it will be a complex case, and anything but a sure thing. As long as it gets incorporated in some sense under some constitutional principle, it's a win. The details will be forever unfair, vexing and annoying, depending on the venue. I doubt anything can prevent that. We'll know within a year.
 
A good day today, since the SCOTUS has accepted the case. After we get our 5-4 ruling that makes Heller apply to every state, the Brady Campaign might as well pack up and go home because that will be game over.
 
A good day today, since the SCOTUS has accepted the case. After we get our 5-4 ruling that makes Heller apply to every state, the Brady Campaign might as well pack up and go home because that will be game over.

Not just yet. All this does is open the door to challenging different types of gun control legislation. Should the SCOTUS incorporate the 2A, it will have to decide the constitutionality of state AWB's, concealed carry, open carrry, one-handgun-per-month, registration, high-capacity magazines and a whole gamut of other issues. There is still plenty there for the Brady Campaign to fight. Who knows where the SCOTUS will stand on issues like an AWB. Even more importantly, who knows what justices will be on the court when that time comes...
 
I'm really worried on this one. IMO less rulings the better, because it doesn't matter how many we win. If we lose one, that's all they need.

The NRA obviously thinks that they have a shot here, or they wouldn't be pushing it.

I wish sometimes folks in Chicago would just move, instead of making the whole country go though this. I guess that's democracy!
 
This case will either be a monumental victory for the right to keep and bear arms or a catastrophic defeat.

Hopefully it will be the former.
 
I know what it says, and means. If they in their ivory towers tell us otherwise we may need to invoke the second to reinstate the second!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top