Come Heller high water (merged threads)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sigh. Moderator spoiled pun in title by introducing typo when merging threads.
Click to expand...

Ha! Prove the moderator made a typo now :neener:

That is what happens when I try to merge threads from my cellphone. Very messy. Not only does it take me 20 minutes to merge a thread; I end up making a bunch of mistakes.
 
All this stuff being dragged out is driving me up the wall! The D.C. vs Heller wait is bad, but I just came home from my wife having a total hip replacement in another city, and I also am on pins and needles over the SCOTUS decision on Exxon - (Maritime Punitive Damages Case) - I've been waiting for years and years for a check. First they cut the amount in half, now we wait to see if there will be anything at all! Give the lawyers enough time to "litigate" and the case disappears (like part of my income that year)! Hopefully, my wife will come home on Thursday, the D.C. vs Heller case will be decided fairly Thursday, and the Exxon case will remain at the agreed payout on Thursday - best I can hope for! :rolleyes:
sailortoo
 
I also am on pins and needles over the SCOTUS decision on Exxon - (Maritime Punitive Damages Case) - I've been waiting for years and years for a check.
Click to expand...

Man, I remember the spill, and I know it was big, but I didnt think it reached all the way to New Mexico! Holy Moley, thta check you get oughtta be HUGE!





:neener::p:D

I know, I know, But I couldnt resist the joke. sorry.I blame geekWithA.45 for posting the Heller/christmas quote. Thats pretty funny, and very accurate.C'mon......PONY! No dead Grandpa's!

:D
 
The implication is that Scalia wrote the majority opinion on Heller.
Click to expand...

Perhaps - and I hope so.

However, it could mean other things as well:

It could mean it is going to be one of those difficult cases with multiple opinions with some Justices concurring in the result but writing their own opinion, or concurring in part and dissenting in part. Such opinions can make it very difficult to interpret and apply to future cases because you have to figure out what it was that a majority actually agreed upon.

It could also mean that, since this is a very important case, they are working and re-working (i.e., watering down) the opinion to get as many Justices as possible to agree.

Or it could mean nothing at all.
 
Grin

Wonder if it falls in the category "means nothing at all".

That is, the decision was written and locked away in April and they have been gleefully stringing us all along. Could toss an interesting hand grenade into the election tho'.
 
Yes, they keep secrets alright, but the CIA? Na! The CIA is supposed to uncover secrets.

Speaking of secrets, though, this "leak" about Scalia still due to write/release a majority opinion from the March hearings, and Heller's opinion not yet released - the last case in March not opined - seems to be a "deliberate faux pas" in the secret-keeping department, if you ask me.

Is it designed to ease angst, or crafted to deceive? Either way, I think it's cruel to tease.

Woody
 
ConstitutionCowboy:
It wasnt leaked, its obvious looking at the cases heard that month, which Justices authored the released opinions, and the process of elimination results in a very high probability of Scalia authoring Heller. He is the only Justice to have not written an opinion that month, and Heller is the last case from March not yet released.

Kharn
 
Ha! Prove the moderator made a typo now
Click to expand...

Cain't never beat the dealer at his own game. At least not when he owns the deck. :)

It is one Heller a pun and really too good to miss. Thanks for the fix.
 
...the process of elimination results in a very high probability...:uhoh:

"It's not a leak. It's reading between the lines of publicly published info.":scrutiny:

...Why don't I feel any less angst, I ask...:eek:

Thank you, though, you two.:cool:

Woody
 
Assuming that Scalia is writing the decision.... (Scotus Blog)

I listened to the oral argument again (4th time) paying special attention to Scalia's comments and questions. If he is writing the decision, I am predicting a very favorable outcome. Of all of the justices, from reviewing the audio file, I dont think I would pick another justice to write it (If they let me pick:))

Here is my prediction:

Majority: Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia, Alito, Thomas.
Fence Sitter: Ginsburg (Depends on the way it gets written)
Dissent: Breyer, Souter, Stevens.

Decision: Affirm - D.C. Ban is unconstitutional, with some, but minimal direction to the lower court to rewrite their earlier decision clarifying the definition of "Arms", indicating a level of scrutiny on par with other rights.

These are just my guesses. As an American that can read simple English (un pequeno Espanol, Und etwas Deutsch), I think it is a shame we have to guess which Supreme Court Justices will not interpret the 2nd Amendment as plainly as it is written. :(

But I am very optimistic that by the end of the week, this board will be full of "WOW...THIS IS GREAT!, Muy Bueno, Wunderbar" :D

Oder ich könnte von der Scheiße voll sein;)
 
And I predict that on Wednesday, we'll hear that it's again delayed, and there will be another 'special' session Thursday (so they'll have Friday for the another 'special' session).
 
I thought Breyer was pretty open to the individual rights view, but it would be a pretty limited right. He always talks about the living constitution and it is pretty clear that the overwhelming majority of people think the second amendment protects individuals, even if they are willing to live with a lot of regulation. I expect Breyer to adopt that view.

Stevens seemed to have bought the "collective" theory hook, line and sinker. Ginsburg and Souter were both hostile to a strong second amendment and they seemed comfortable with a "collective" view, but I bet they will end up with Breyer. The "collective view" is just too intellectually dishonest, even for a lawyer.:D

My guess is five voting to affirm, three justices led by Breyer concurring in part and dissenting in part (voting to overturn the statute not letting you have an operational firearm but not the handgun ban), with Stevens dissenting. But Ginsburg and/or Souter could end up with Stevens.

You can take that to the bank.;)
 
And I predict that on Wednesday, we'll hear that it's again delayed, and there will be another 'special' session Thursday (so they'll have Friday for the another 'special' session).
Click to expand...

pull1.jpg
 
On the topic of a likely Heller decision tomorrow: “It feels like we’re anticipating a really messed up Christmas… where you’re either going to get a pony, or find out your grandpa died.”
Click to expand...

...and with that I'll need a new keyboard...perhaps one without sticky soda in the keys... :D
 
I had a weird dream last night. The SCOTUS simply said the DC gun ban was frivolous and must be shot down.

I hope they say something a little more comprehensive in the real world!

Woody
 
Pilot:
Got anything to substantiate that 30 July date?

Clipper:
The Court did Mon/Wed/Thurs in '05 when they had a large number of cases to release in their last week, I dont think they've ever done Friday.

Kharn
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
Heller: "written in that sitting"?
2 3 4
Replies
88
Views
7K
ctdonath
C
C
  • Locked
Heller: Plurality option?
2 3 4
Replies
84
Views
4K
Bartholomew Roberts
B
3
  • Locked
dang, guess we'll wait 'till 6/26 for heller
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
RP88
R
R
  • Locked
The right to carry arms (re: DC v. Heller)
Replies
8
Views
667
Regen
R
C
  • Locked
No-Knock Warrent Searches Allowed
Replies
1
Views
549
Zak Smith
Zak Smith
Back
Top