How long can Pro-2nd Amendment folks withold 2nd Amendment cases to SCOTUS?

[Aim1]

How long can 2nd Amendment appeals be held from SCOTUS? What if the next justice seated is anti-2nd Amendment one, would we just wait 10 years to get a more pro-2nd Amendment balance of the court?


Pro-2nd Amendment folks might know when to hold back an appeal while it might be out of our control when a criminal or someone with a bad case takes a major 2nd Amendment case to SCOTUS and then loses.






http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/da...me-court-safe-act-appeal-blog-entry-1.2554874

Pro gun group nixes Supreme Court SAFE Act appeal
BY Ken Lovett NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Monday, March 7, 2016, 4:13 AM -

The state's leading gun rights organization has halted its lawsuit looking to strike down Gov. Cuomo's 2013 gun control law because of the recent death of US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia.

The state Rifle and Pistol Association decided against filing a petition asking the Supreme Court to hear the case fearing the conservative Scalia’s death will make winning the case virtually impossible. "It's just the wrong time," said Tom King, Rifle and Pistol Association president and a National Rifle Association board member.

 

[230RN]

That's an interesting point.

The way I, in my dumb and naive non-lawyer viewpoint see it, nine justices aren't enough. As we have seen recently, the passing or retirement of one justice and appointment of another by an ideology-bound President can unfairly unbalance the Court, and so much for the checks and balances notion.

There ought to be a substantially higher (odd) number of Justices to maintain some kind of genuine neutrality in their decision-making regardless of the ability of the President to make appointments. (Yeah, I know, they are "confirmed" by the Senate... or perhaps the term "rubber-stamped" by the Senate could be used in some cases. The President has a lot of arm-twisting power.)

Sort of like a lot of lower Courts with perhaps ~21 judges, where cases are heard by a panel of three or five, and if there are conflicts, "en banc" petitions can be made.

What I do know for sure, in my dumb and naive non-lawyer viewpoint, is that it takes far too long and far too much money to rectify even the clearest, simplest violation of fundamental civil rights with the present system. Let alone confounding the matter with an overabundance of Justices who concur with a President's agenda just because two or three of them left the bench in those eight years.

Or even one, as in the present situation.

Terry

 

[WyoShooter1]

That's an interesting point.

The way I, in my dumb and naive non-lawyer viewpoint see it, nine justices aren't enough... There ought to be a substantially higher (odd) number of Justices to maintain some kind of genuine neutrality in their decision-making regardless of the ability of the President to make appointments...
Terry

Uhh...this idea was rejected when FDR tried it. It was called his "court packing scheme."

Ed

 

[230RN]

^ I'm of course familiar with that. But FDR would have packed the court with like-thinking Justices.

I'm saying that appointments through several terms of several Presidents in a Court with a larger N would dilute the significance of one ideologically-bound President appointing three or four Justices in eight years. "Confirmation" hearings notwithstanding.

What we face right now is an obvious "packing" situation, affecting possibly a whole generation of what "we" would probably consider unacceptable decisions.

Terry

 

[threefeathers]

Luckily it takes a long time for a case to be brought before the Supremes. That may give us a little time to load the court. However if we lose this election it is all over but the digging holes to put the guns we have.

 

[Metal God]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2101

 

[230RN]

^ What are you saying, there?

 

[Metal God]

I'm not saying anything . That's what I found in regards to the OP's question . It appears depending on the type of case you have 30 , 60 or 90 days to appeal . That may be inaccurate but it was the only thing I could find that appears to answer the question .

 

[230RN]

OK, thanks for the research. Good info, but I was thinking more of the time involved in getting a case up to SCOTUS.

 

[Metal God]

There is a time line for which you must appeal the last loss you had . Depending on your jurisdiction that time line may differ but my guess would be not much different then the first link I posted . 30 , 60 or 90 days .

How long a case takes to get to the SCOTUS from the beginning ?? Well that's different for sure . Very important issues for the country often get fast tracked , Immigration , gay marriage etc . The fact on the whole the 2nd has had a pretty good run as of late . It's not likely considered an issue that needs fast tracking . I'm getting over my head here but if a case starts out in Federal court it may get there sooner then a case that starts at the local level because there would be a few more courts to go through .

I'd say in general a couple years would be getting there in good time . Likely more like 3 to 4 years and is why here in CA we are screwed . Are legislature seems to pass anti gun laws 3 or 4 times a year , some times more . So the time it takes us to fight back one case ( 3 or 4 years ) . The state has likely enacted or strengthen 12 more laws that need to be fought . Here in CA that ratio is un-winnable and they know it .

I think we need a law or constitutional amendment that states if you vote for a law that later is found to be unconstitutional . You finish your term but can NEVER hold ANY public office again . Maybe that will force are elected officials to think twice about blindly following there party and start thinking country first . This obviously goes to all officials regardless of issue , If you vote to limit abortion and that law is later found to be unconstitutional . Your gone , never to return to public life .

FWIW , We have a CCW case here in CA Peruta v San Diego

Top of the page is a link to the video of the en-banc hiring .
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000722

First post shows the time line this case took .
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=811282

This case started in late 2012 and is at the 9th circuit court of appeals right now waiting on the en-banc decision . so we are hoping to get a ruling soon .

 

[230RN]

^

I'd say in general a couple years would be getting there in good time . Likely more like 3 to 4 years and is why here in CA we are screwed . Are legislature seems to pass anti gun laws 3 or 4 times a year , some times more . So the time it takes us to fight back one case ( 3 or 4 years ) . The state has likely enacted or strengthen 12 more laws that need to be fought . Here in CA that ratio is un-winnable and they know it .

Yes. See my signature line:

Trouble is, these jerkwads can pass dumb, self-serving, agenda-driven stupid laws much faster than we can beat them down in the courts. And they're well aware of that.

( ^ In case you have signature lines turned off.)

I think we need a law or constitutional amendment that states if you vote for a law that later is found to be unconstitutional . You finish your term but can NEVER hold ANY public office again .

I agree in principle, and suggested this long ago. We differ in the punishment though. I was thinking jail terms and fines, but others suggested even more severe punishments involving feathers, ropes, hot tar, and whatnot.

But of course that wasn't on THR.

I'm more or less familiar with the Peruta case, and for a while I had his picture up on the Hero spot on my living room wall. Right now, it's a picture of Alan Gura, my "default" Hero.

Terry, 230RN

 

[Metal God]

The voting for unconstitutional laws and the punishment :

I've heard of those same suggestions . Some are just silly others not so much . Lets lake jail time or even immediate resignation . When do they start there jail time ? right away ?? OK that would go along the same lines as immediate resignation . Even well meaning people can pass an unconstitutional law , sometimes with HUGE bipartisan support .

The idea of immediate punishment at times could have 350+ congressman and 70 senators fired at once . The country could not operate that way . Maybe if in every election there was a "VICE" congressman/senator picked to immediately take over if such a thing happened . I don't know it's a complicated issue for sure but I feel there does need to be some sort of accountability . Jail time seems a bit much to me seeing how many believed at the time it was best . These people love there power , the threat of loosing that power IMO would be a huge deterrent .

 

[230RN]

I went back and inserted a grin in my previous post.

The point was, that some people* are getting pretty frustrated with :

(A) the wanton passage of plainly unconstitutional law by plain-English reading of the Constitution and "letting the Courts sort it out";

(B) the time and expense of the aforesaid "letting the courts settle it";

(C) the fact that one (usually) has to expose oneself to enforcement before one has standing to appeal to the courts.

(D) Among other things. Like the de facto packing of the Court possible because of its only having nine members.

Of course, the legislators like (A), the lawyers like (B), the cops like (C), and the controlling elite like (D).

But we're getting away from the OP's question as to the strategy involved in leaping in to obtain redress from the Courts in an untimely manner.

View attachment 743427

Terry, 230RN

* Like me, f''r instance. Other examples abound.

 

[Metal God]

No need to insert I get most don't feel that way in reality . I was just trying to think of something that might :banghead: pass
.
.

 

[230RN]

OK.

Hawaiian shaka:

 

[cheygriz]

Easy solution.
Support those who share our values.

 

[230RN]

Aim 1 ("OP") remarked in the original post:

Pro-2nd Amendment folks might know when to hold back an appeal while it might be out of our control when a criminal or someone with a bad case takes a major 2nd Amendment case to SCOTUS and then loses.

That kind of worries me, too. See my point (C) in post 13. It kind of has echoes of the Miller case back in 1939. If I recall correctly, Miller and his buddy were stopped because of their involvement in bootlegging:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

(This Wiki article is an informal discussion of the facts of the matter, not a "scholarly" presentation.)

In general, one has to violate the possibly unconstitutional law in order to bring it to the court system for adjudication, and that is reflected in the OP's concerns of some real dirtbag appealing his conviction on constitutional grounds.

But some hold difffering opinions. In private correspondence, that position was summed up this way:

(Private correspondence)

The requirement that a person is supposed to have "standing" has been misconstrued to say you have to have been convicted of, or injured by, something [in order] to be heard [by the courts]. In other words, you have to have broken the law whether it is a constitutional law or not. In my book, if the law is unconstitutional, you have standing if in any way you would be wrongfully harmed by violating such a law, and [you] should not have to subject yourself to the potential harm just to challenge such a law.

(Private correspondence) (Bold and underlining mine.)

Well, his book may be diffferent from your book, but that bolded portion makes sense to me --in my dumb and naïve non-lawyer viewpoint.

Yes, if every law were to be challenged by anyone who "feels" it's unconstitutional, it would bind up the courts somethin' fierce. (Another reason to have a larger number of Associate Justices on the Supreme Court, with individual cases heard by smaller panels of judges.)

But the long-term result, in my mind, is that it would put a damper on the legislative bodies' "wanton passage of plainly unconstitutional law by plain-English reading of the Constitution." (My words in paragraph (A) in post 13.)

Thus, in my imaginary "long term result," fewer "dicey" laws would be passed in the first place, thereby ultimately reducing the number of challenges to laws for the courts to deal with anyway.

Especially if hints of tar, ropes, rails, and feathers were involved.

Terry, 230RN

 

[anchorman]

That's why we have federal courts and federal appeals courts. They strike down laws all the time, and the Supreme Court will take cases selectively based on what they find important, so as to not be bogged down by every person claiming standing.

When it comes to laws that are blatant violations of constitutional rights, there probably should be a looser standard of who has standing than for other types of laws.

Also to those upthread, please don't think that obama's appointees are any more or less "ideological" than judges appointed under republican presidents. They're just "ideological" if one can call it that, on different issues. I personally don't like the ideologies of most of the politicians we have, and I wish they would stop meddling in the restriction of all of the people's constitutionally protected civil rights.