D.C. vs. Heller remanded to lower court?

[usmarine0352_2005]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,338282,00.html

His brief, however, surprised many when it argued against a definitive ruling on the merits of the case. Instead the brief counsels the justices that the “better course” would be to remand the case back to the lower courts for further review. In so doing, Clement urges the court to acknowledge the “plain text” of the Second Amendment and recognize that the law does guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms. He says such an interpretation “reinforces the most natural reading of the amendment’s text.”

Clement asks the court to remand the case out of fear that an outright affirmation of the lower court’s ruling could “cast doubt” on all existing federal firearms legislation.

What is the chance of SCOTUS remanding this back to the lower court?

 

[alemonkey]

I can't imagine they'd do that after agreeing to hear the case in the first place.

 

[Elm Creek Smith]

The odds of a "remand" are slim since there now exists differences in opinions of US Circuit Courts of Appeal that affect case law (DC vs 9th Circus Court in California). The SCOTUS has to make a decision.

ECS

 

[Zundfolge]

What is the chance of SCOTUS remanding this back to the lower court?

If they did, wouldn't that mean the lower courts ruling would stand and we win?

 

[ctdonath]

If they did, that would mean SCOTUS would have to provide a principle by which the lower courts would have to reconsider their verdict, and I expect the intent of doing so is that the lower courts ruling would change and we would lose.

The odds of remanding are very slim. BOTH sides have expressed serious displeasure with the SG's suggestion - DC in particular. A great deal of effort on everyone's part (judges included) to get to this point, not to be wasted by a lame "try again, let's make some lame crap up this time to fudge the whole issue" non-verdict. SCOTUS even re-wrote the question at hand to make it very specific and very limited, leaving little wiggle room for a fudged result.

 

[Rob G]

I'm not real knowledgeable on court procedure but it seems to me that if they were going to remand it then they wouldn't be having oral arguments on Tuesday. I think they're going to keep this one.

 

[Titan6]

Zero%.

 

[k_dawg]

They can remand it for only certain parts.

For example, they could rule the 2nd ammendment is an individual right, but not strict scrutiny; and then remand to determine the particulars: if the regulation requiring disassembly of long arms are now an unreasonable violation of the second.

 

[Bubbles]

It's not going to happen.

 

[hollywoodfl]

My understanding is that the Solicitor General wants to remand the case to a lower court to make the verdict more nuanced so that it would NOT apply per se to a broad reading of RKBA. This would NOT be favorable in the eyes of those of us who believe in the individual right.