So, at least one SCOTUS judge can't get 3 others to vote for Drake v. Jerejian?

[usmarine0352_2005]

.
Is that the apparent case here, that at least 1 SCOTUS judge can't get at least 3 others to vote to grant cert on Drake v. Jerejian?



And if that's the case, how come they haven't denied cert yet?





http://reason.com/blog/2014/04/28/supreme-court-remains-silent-on-major-gu

.
Supreme Court Remains Silent on Major Gun Rights Case

Damon Root|Apr. 28, 2014 10:19 am

On April 18 and again on April 25, the U.S. Supreme Court met in private conference to consider the latest crop of cases seeking review. According to the Court's docket, both conferences included discussion of Drake v. Jerejian, a Second Amendment case centering on the constitutionality of New Jersey's Handgun Permit Law. On May 21, the Court announced the results of its April 18 conference. There was no word on Drake. Today the Court announced the results of its April 25 conference. Once again, silence on the Second Amendment. With no action taken, the case will now most likely be re-listed for another round of debate at the Court's next private conference, which is currently scheduled for May 2.

These are notable developments. The Supreme Court rejects the vast majority of petitions it receives each year (the acceptance rate is around 2 percent). That Drake keeps kicking around suggests somebody on the Court has taken a serious interest in hearing the case and is pushing for extra consideration among the nine members before a final vote is held on whether or not to accept it. If that is the reason, then no news today might very well mean good news in the future for gun rights advocates.
.

.

 

[vamo]

Its not necessarily that 3 others don't want to hear it. The supreme court just can't logistically hear every case appealed to its level. Sure to us that might seem like the most important case on their plate and in need of immediate review; but everyone else trying to get heard by the court would disagree.

 

[AlexanderA]

This is a hot-potato issue (carry outside the home) that the Justices probably aren't comfortable deciding at this time. On the other hand, the lower courts are divided, so the Justices also aren't comfortable just walking away from it. The issue is being forced upon them earler than they were ready for it. Therefore, I can see them delaying as long as they can. I get the sense that a majority of the Justices does not want to rule that there's a right to carry outside the home. And also, contradicting legislatures is a big step that they don't take lightly.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

This is a hot-potato issue (carry outside the home) that the Justices probably aren't comfortable deciding at this time. On the other hand, the lower courts are divided, so the Justices also aren't comfortable just walking away from it. The issue is being forced upon them earler than they were ready for it. Therefore, I can see them delaying as long as they can. I get the sense that a majority of the Justices does not want to rule that there's a right to carry outside the home. And also, contradicting legislatures is a big step that they don't take lightly.

Wasn't it one of SCOTUS's majority rulings that said, "...carry a gun in case of confrontation"?




And didn't another judge say you are are more likely to have a confrontation outside of your home?



Wouldn't you expect it to be another 5-4 decisions in favor of carry outside the home?

 

[tyeo098]

This is a huge deal.

If they hear it, and go 5-4 the other way, we'd be screwed for a loooong while.

Its a razer's edge between win and lose.

 

[Somewhere in NM]

You really can't read anything into this. Some petitions have been relisted at least once before being granted cert. See http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/04/relist-watch-what-does-the-courts-relist-streak-mean/ for a nice discussion.

 

[vamo]

You really can't read anything into this. Some petitions have been relisted at least once before being granted cert. See http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/04/re...t-streak-mean/ for a nice discussion.

This.

Like I said its not necessarily the case that they don't want to hear a case. Its a logistical nightmare than every single case that does not get settled at a lower level ends up at their doorstep, they are only one court.

 

[natman]

I've heard that the percentage of cases that are granted cert is closer to 1 percent. That means that for every case heard, 99 cases aren't, every one of which is important to someone.

 

[230RN]

I have this vague, naïve, non-lawyer perspective that the Court "antis" are forcing a wait for more anti decisions to be made in the lower courts.

 

[Hypnogator]

I have this vague, naïve, non-lawyer perspective that the Court "antis" are forcing a wait for more anti decisions to be made in the lower courts.

Sadly, it may be the other way around. The anti's don't have enough votes to block, but the Heller majority may include one who won't vote to extend the 2nd outside of the home.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

I have this vague, naïve, non-lawyer perspective that the Court "antis" are forcing a wait for more anti decisions to be made in the lower courts.

Why do you think they'd do this?

 

[Derry 1946]

Not infrequently, various members of the Court are waiting for a different (similar) case that may be coming down the pike. (There are several in the pipeline.) They sometimes hear several related cases at once. They are generally focused on a set of facts that lend themselves to enunciating a rule of law that will solve more problems than it creates, in a wider sphere of law than any one case covers. Sometimes they just need more time to think about it. Sometimes they are trying to work out a consensus that's better than three or four fractured opinions. Sometimes they feel they have bigger fish to fry.

 

[Frosty Dave]

Here is a little fresh reading along the same line -

"That Drake keeps kicking around suggests that somebody on the Court has taken a serious interest in hearing the case and is pushing for extra consideration among the nine members before a final vote is held on whether or not to accept it."

Rumors are that Justice Antonin Scalia is the one pushing for the court to hear Drake.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/18160-could-drake-v-jerejian-be-the-next-big-gun-case

 

[madsend81]

Another theory that I've heard is that the court may be trying to figure out how to reframe the question being asked of the court so that they can get 5 justices on board. They did that before hearing Heller.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

Another theory that I've heard is that the court may be trying to figure out how to reframe the question being asked of the court so that they can get 5 justices on board. They did that before hearing Heller.

What exactly did they do? How did they rephrase the Heller question?