Updates on District of Columbia v. Heller?
- Thread starter nate392
- Start date
- Status
damien
Member
The decision is expected in June and we won't hear a peep before the decision is published. There is no actual deadline. The Supreme Court just doesn't "leak" and it doesn't sent up "trial balloons" either.
TacMedic4450
Member
Any way of knowing if itll be the first part of June or the last?
DoubleTapDrew
Member
Are they supposed to wait a certain amount of time?
I was kind of hoping they would decide "this is so Heller it's not even funny" after about a week and spend the rest of the time playing drinking games and drooling over the ads on Sturmgewehr...
I was kind of hoping they would decide "this is so Heller it's not even funny" after about a week and spend the rest of the time playing drinking games and drooling over the ads on Sturmgewehr...
damien
Member
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/15/AR2008031502358_pf.html
"That is part of the reason that the outcome -- not expected until near the end of the court's term in late June -- will be so intriguing, said Suzanna Sherry, a law professor at Vanderbilt University."
Every article I have read has referenced June, there is just no set date. The Supreme Court likes to work that way.
"That is part of the reason that the outcome -- not expected until near the end of the court's term in late June -- will be so intriguing, said Suzanna Sherry, a law professor at Vanderbilt University."
Every article I have read has referenced June, there is just no set date. The Supreme Court likes to work that way.
ServiceSoon
Member
Damien: That is a fairly balanced and well written article.
We wont know anything until the Monday a Justice announces the decision from the bench. Clerks will hand out slips of paper with a summary of the decision to the media and the full decision will be released at around the same time.
Kharn
Kharn
AirForceShooter
Member
and a big hand grenade gets thrown into the Presidential election
AFS
AFS
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Well the Court has already had a vote on the outcome of the case. They are just writing/drafting the opinions now (though a Justice can still change their position until the opinion comes out - supposedly that is what happened with Planned Parenthood v. Casey).
xjchief
Member
This seemingly endless wait for them to announce their decision and publish it reminds me...
How do you keep a moron in suspense?
How do you keep a moron in suspense?
Bubbles
Member
So should we start a "decision date pool"? Perhaps with the add-ons of the votes each way, and the ruling? All in good fun of course...
jfh
Member.
I'm in on the pool.
For reasons not entirely clear to me, the date of June 18th is stuck in my mind....Whenever.
Jim H.
For reasons not entirely clear to me, the date of June 18th is stuck in my mind....Whenever.
Jim H.
El Tejon
Member
nate, come now, you know lawyers don't work that way.
Bubbles
Member
Tuesday, May 27th
7-2 Decision
Strict Scrutiny
7-2 Decision
Strict Scrutiny
I'll say Monday, June 16th.
5 Justices on the majority for 2A protecting Heller's right, two concurring in part (on it being an individual right, but claiming Heller not protected), two dissenting.
Pick a blue day from this calendar: SC Calendar, for valid dates
Kharn
5 Justices on the majority for 2A protecting Heller's right, two concurring in part (on it being an individual right, but claiming Heller not protected), two dissenting.
Pick a blue day from this calendar: SC Calendar, for valid dates
Kharn
HuntAndFish
Member
I'll pick the same date, 6/16/08. 5-4 the DC gun ban is upheld, lower court is reversed. No decision on scrutiny. Very narrow decision.
Dissenters: Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito.
Dissenters: Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito.
Waitone
Member
In any case the decision whatever it may be will be part of the forthcoming election.
frankie_the_yankee
Member
My instinct is that the decision will be issued very close to the last day of the term - maybe on the very last day.
I think it will go 5-4 in our favor, with strict scrutiny.
I think it will go 5-4 in our favor, with strict scrutiny.
BruceRDucer
Member
my thoughts
/
This morning, laying awake in bed at 3:30, my thoughts turned to the founding of the nation, and to contemplation of the clauses which framed its founding.
"...of the people"
"...consent of the governed"
"...shall not be infringed"
Consideration of the nature of "individual rights" and the onset of Federalism show the conflict in a general light. Perhaps America has merely become a generalized beauracracy, where the individual rights at law are to be parcelled out to a disparate set of beaureaucratic entities or municpal agencies, without the over-riding concept of the rule of law.
The nation itself stands upon the brink of burying the vital forces which gave illumination at its founding.
The tendency within Federalism is that the people tend to exist for the government, rather than the government existing for the people. At the core of the issue, is the issue of the very conceptualization of Individual Liberty.
I'm no legal scholar, and I understand that legal terms often differ significantly from common understandings of words, but I do know from history the meaning of oppression, of tyranny, and the concept of the rule of law.
My instinct is that in its critical analysis, this is a matter of "individual rights" as opposed to the rights of the central power to govern.
"Individual Rights," when dismissed summarily, can only return the population of our nation into a captive people in service to the state. Does the right to keep and bear arms exist only as the right of a MILITIA, or does the right reside within the INDIVIDUAL?
Do any rights reside within the individual citzen?
This court decision is a critical moment, at a time when many other challenges to the Bill of Rights are in play. I recall that some authors, many of them popular scientists for example, write in the presumption of being learned men, who publish entire books, without barely a mention of the U. S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and without a recognition of the Rule of Law, who discuss what the American citizen should and should not be allowed to do. Unfortunately, many of them would reduce the individual citizen to a natural creature whose only "right" is to serve the central government, without the liberty to speak freely, write freely, worship freely, assemble freely, or freely petition the government for redress of grievances.
Included in such erosions of Individual Rights, are the erosions of the provisions at law for the individual to self defense.
We stand at a crossroads.
[This is not intended to be a definitive statement. It is only a reflection.]
/
This morning, laying awake in bed at 3:30, my thoughts turned to the founding of the nation, and to contemplation of the clauses which framed its founding.
"...of the people"
"...consent of the governed"
"...shall not be infringed"
Consideration of the nature of "individual rights" and the onset of Federalism show the conflict in a general light. Perhaps America has merely become a generalized beauracracy, where the individual rights at law are to be parcelled out to a disparate set of beaureaucratic entities or municpal agencies, without the over-riding concept of the rule of law.
The nation itself stands upon the brink of burying the vital forces which gave illumination at its founding.
The tendency within Federalism is that the people tend to exist for the government, rather than the government existing for the people. At the core of the issue, is the issue of the very conceptualization of Individual Liberty.
I'm no legal scholar, and I understand that legal terms often differ significantly from common understandings of words, but I do know from history the meaning of oppression, of tyranny, and the concept of the rule of law.
My instinct is that in its critical analysis, this is a matter of "individual rights" as opposed to the rights of the central power to govern.
"Individual Rights," when dismissed summarily, can only return the population of our nation into a captive people in service to the state. Does the right to keep and bear arms exist only as the right of a MILITIA, or does the right reside within the INDIVIDUAL?
Do any rights reside within the individual citzen?
This court decision is a critical moment, at a time when many other challenges to the Bill of Rights are in play. I recall that some authors, many of them popular scientists for example, write in the presumption of being learned men, who publish entire books, without barely a mention of the U. S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and without a recognition of the Rule of Law, who discuss what the American citizen should and should not be allowed to do. Unfortunately, many of them would reduce the individual citizen to a natural creature whose only "right" is to serve the central government, without the liberty to speak freely, write freely, worship freely, assemble freely, or freely petition the government for redress of grievances.
Included in such erosions of Individual Rights, are the erosions of the provisions at law for the individual to self defense.
We stand at a crossroads.
[This is not intended to be a definitive statement. It is only a reflection.]
cloudedice
Member
Well xjchief, how DO you keep a moron in suspense? I'm on the edge of my seat here.
I think the extent of the ruling could have a huge election impact.
It could take gun rights out of the election, or make it more like a constitutional amendment repeal size stance for anyone who is against gun rights.
however, this is from the view of my bias: that heller will be a huge victory for gun rights and have far greater implications than just city gun bans. If this is a case we may see laws rolled back to pre-1960's levels.
That being said, I'm probably an optimist.
It could take gun rights out of the election, or make it more like a constitutional amendment repeal size stance for anyone who is against gun rights.
however, this is from the view of my bias: that heller will be a huge victory for gun rights and have far greater implications than just city gun bans. If this is a case we may see laws rolled back to pre-1960's levels.
That being said, I'm probably an optimist.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
I don't think any of the candidates are stupid enough to even bring up the topic of guns any longer.
They say just enough when pressed to make it look like they don't particularly care.
- Status