30 cal slob
Member
no opinion today. per scotus blog:
dang, guess we'll wait 'till 6/26 for heller
- Thread starter 30 cal slob
- Start date
- Status
AZAndy
Member
It's kinda like waiting on the mail to bring that custom holster you ordered six months ago. ;-)
bad news, GOOD NEWS
The bad news is no Heller today. The good news? Unless something unusual happens, Justice Scalia(!) will write the opinion! During questioning, Justice Scalia showed he is a strong friend of the 2a, at times (in my opinion) mocking D.C. for their ridiculous assertions.
We are now looking at next Wednesday or Thursday. With Justice Scalia writing, we will have a powerful reading to our side.
Here is to 9-0!
Tom Goldstein said:
The bad news is no Heller today. The good news? Unless something unusual happens, Justice Scalia(!) will write the opinion! During questioning, Justice Scalia showed he is a strong friend of the 2a, at times (in my opinion) mocking D.C. for their ridiculous assertions.
We are now looking at next Wednesday or Thursday. With Justice Scalia writing, we will have a powerful reading to our side.
Here is to 9-0!
Beatnik
Member
If we had to rely on the USPS to deliver fundamental human rights, we'd be doomed.
that's what I saw too. Time for speculation.
Scalia is a fan of originalism, but IIRC, he seems to look at the 2A as being very much militia related. Anybody who is not of militia age, would therefore not have the right to keep and bear arms as the 2A guarantees. Additionally, because Heller is not a resident of a state, the 2A also does not apply. - I'm citing my recollection of what Scalia is believed to think - not my own opinion.
So, if that's the case, perhaps it means that the rest of the justices believe the 2A is an individual right universally guaranteeing that all US citizens have the RKBA. Which would be a good thing.
On the other hand, I'm just some guy thinking in text - and certainly no expert in this matter.
Perhaps Jdude is right and Scalia is more of a friend than the other justices, in which case this is bad that he is the only one without a majority opinion.
Scalia is a fan of originalism, but IIRC, he seems to look at the 2A as being very much militia related. Anybody who is not of militia age, would therefore not have the right to keep and bear arms as the 2A guarantees. Additionally, because Heller is not a resident of a state, the 2A also does not apply. - I'm citing my recollection of what Scalia is believed to think - not my own opinion.
So, if that's the case, perhaps it means that the rest of the justices believe the 2A is an individual right universally guaranteeing that all US citizens have the RKBA. Which would be a good thing.
On the other hand, I'm just some guy thinking in text - and certainly no expert in this matter.
Perhaps Jdude is right and Scalia is more of a friend than the other justices, in which case this is bad that he is the only one without a majority opinion.
Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,146
Jdude, why do you say that just because Scalia is the holdout, that he is writing the majority opinion? Isn't it possible that the majority has already been written, and he is just finishing up his dissent? Or, more likely, a concurring opinion with the outcome, which is not the majority opinion?
Z-Michigan
Member
Cheese, I have some idea of where you get those ideas, but I doubt Scalia will be so narrow and rigid on this issue. While he uses the concepts of originalism extensively in his writing, realistically he often is just arguing to reach the result he wants. And as someone who grew up carrying rifles on NY subways for JROTC (IIRC), I think Scalia will be quite positive.
FWIW, even if limited to militia age, that would be something like 16 to 65, I think.
And I don't imagine I'll see the day that Scalia writes the opinion that has a 9-0 majority.
FWIW, even if limited to militia age, that would be something like 16 to 65, I think.
And I don't imagine I'll see the day that Scalia writes the opinion that has a 9-0 majority.
Dahwg
Member
I think some of you are misunderstanding.
He is the only one who has not written an opinion for a case that has been heard. The custom of the court is that they take turns writing the opinion. He's not a hold out, he's most likely the one who will be writing the opinion therefore it seems very very favorable to the good guys.
Aditionally the opinions that Justice Scalia writes are very unequivical. There will be no wiggle room for the antis, it will be a strong opinion for our side. Here's hoping for inclusion and strict scrutiny.
He is the only one who has not written an opinion for a case that has been heard. The custom of the court is that they take turns writing the opinion. He's not a hold out, he's most likely the one who will be writing the opinion therefore it seems very very favorable to the good guys.
Aditionally the opinions that Justice Scalia writes are very unequivical. There will be no wiggle room for the antis, it will be a strong opinion for our side. Here's hoping for inclusion and strict scrutiny.
CDignition
Member
I would agree with this..I think were in for a public slapdown...
So, does that mean Heller cannot speak what he wants, worship the god of his choice, must quarter soldiers in his home, and incriminate himself?
It would be troubling if SCOTUS said "The 2A protects an individual right but it doesn't apply to D.C. residents."
[quote="Premiumsauces]Jdude, why do you say that just because Scalia is the holdout, that he is writing the majority opinion? Isn't it possible that the majority has already been written, and he is just finishing up his dissent? Or, more likely, a concurring opinion with the outcome, which is not the majority opinion?[/quote]
Justice Scalia is the only Justice without a written decision for that month. Usually they are divided up by month, by Justice. So it is highly likely that Justice Scalia will be writing the opinion.
Indeed it is possible that the majority has been written and he is finishing up his dissent. From the oral questioning, I doubt that myself. I do find your last idea, a concurring opinion with the outcome, to be a very good possibility.
I still think Scalia will write the majority. He is the only one with no homework for that month. Were Justice Scalia to dissent with the majority, I have no idea who would write. I suppose the Chief Justice.
Justice Scalia is the only Justice without a written decision for that month. Usually they are divided up by month, by Justice. So it is highly likely that Justice Scalia will be writing the opinion.
Indeed it is possible that the majority has been written and he is finishing up his dissent. From the oral questioning, I doubt that myself. I do find your last idea, a concurring opinion with the outcome, to be a very good possibility.
I still think Scalia will write the majority. He is the only one with no homework for that month. Were Justice Scalia to dissent with the majority, I have no idea who would write. I suppose the Chief Justice.
Dain Bramage
Member
The USSC isn't much better.
Scalia sometimes votes the result he wants and then backs it up, sometimes in a twisted fashion, IMO. I'm thinking of Scalia's opinion in Employment Division v. Smith, which sided against 1st Amendment free exercise of religion. I personally felt Scalia did not accord the case the strict scrutiny it deserved.
To me, it meant that he wanted the result that he got, and was willing to ignore a lot of precedent to get there. If he wants strict scrutiny in DC v Heller, he'll go a long way to get it. If he doesn't want strict scrutiny, it's because he's also a rule-of-law guy, which in the Employment Division v. Smith case, is the way he went. In other words, IMO, Scalia could agree with the Feds that it's a personal right but DC (or ATF) is still free to continue screwing gun owners.
I hope that the fact that Heller couldn't even legally keep a loaded shotgun at home struck a chord with Scalia (we know he likes to hunt).
To me, it meant that he wanted the result that he got, and was willing to ignore a lot of precedent to get there. If he wants strict scrutiny in DC v Heller, he'll go a long way to get it. If he doesn't want strict scrutiny, it's because he's also a rule-of-law guy, which in the Employment Division v. Smith case, is the way he went. In other words, IMO, Scalia could agree with the Feds that it's a personal right but DC (or ATF) is still free to continue screwing gun owners.
I hope that the fact that Heller couldn't even legally keep a loaded shotgun at home struck a chord with Scalia (we know he likes to hunt).
GigaBuist
Member
I'd say it did. From the oral argument transcript:
BlackManWithAGun
Member
Decision on Thursday- maybe...
Guess it will be my birthday present, good or bad. Blame it on me.
Guess it will be my birthday present, good or bad. Blame it on me.
Sebastian the Ibis
Member
As much as I would love to see Scalia write the majority opinion I would kinda be surprised to see him do so.
While they try to spread the opinions out, the Chief or most senior judge in the majority assigns the authorship of the opinions. Usually the Assignor assigns the most important cases to himself or the justice on his side that is the closest to flipping- this way the chief keeps the swing votes. Scalia is almost never a swing-vote he is adamant in his views. He also does he write opinions to coax in the swingers like Breyer and Ginsburg do.
Therefore if Scalia is writing, (1) He is in the minority (2) Roberts and Stevens are in the minority and Scalia assigned it to himself. (3) Everything I said above is wrong, Roberts doesn't follow the Rhenquist model and has assigned it to Scalia.
I can't wait for this opinion.
While they try to spread the opinions out, the Chief or most senior judge in the majority assigns the authorship of the opinions. Usually the Assignor assigns the most important cases to himself or the justice on his side that is the closest to flipping- this way the chief keeps the swing votes. Scalia is almost never a swing-vote he is adamant in his views. He also does he write opinions to coax in the swingers like Breyer and Ginsburg do.
Therefore if Scalia is writing, (1) He is in the minority (2) Roberts and Stevens are in the minority and Scalia assigned it to himself. (3) Everything I said above is wrong, Roberts doesn't follow the Rhenquist model and has assigned it to Scalia.
I can't wait for this opinion.
30 cal slob
Member
not sure if you've seen this, sorry if this is a re-paste:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wild-opinion-speculation/
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wild-opinion-speculation/
Jamie C.
Member
I do have to wonder if the Justices are getting a giggle over the stress they're causing with this one... And if they're doing it on purpose. 
J.C.
J.C.
30 cal slob
Member
dude, you could have heard my chest pounding this morning at 10.
this thursday, i think i'm going to have to try very hard not to jump out of my seat with joy or jump out the window in despair.
i have to stifle myself sometimes, my family can hardly understand the strong passion gun owners have for the 2A and what it means.
this thursday, i think i'm going to have to try very hard not to jump out of my seat with joy or jump out the window in despair.
i have to stifle myself sometimes, my family can hardly understand the strong passion gun owners have for the 2A and what it means.
cracked butt
Member
If we had to rely on UPS, it would be delivered- broken.
I'm willing to wait a few more days, a few more weeks, even a few more months if the decision impacts our country in a positive fashion for several generations.
machinisttx
Member
I think a lot of people are expecting far more than what will come out of the Heller case.
I personally think it's going to be some variation of the Bush Administration's opinion(reflected by the Amicus Brief submitted by same)--which is "individual right but the government should be free to regulate it".
I do not have high hopes for a truly positive ruling. I think we're going to lose ground instead of gain it.
I personally think it's going to be some variation of the Bush Administration's opinion(reflected by the Amicus Brief submitted by same)--which is "individual right but the government should be free to regulate it".
I do not have high hopes for a truly positive ruling. I think we're going to lose ground instead of gain it.
- Status
