• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Peruta denied Cert?

Lutherf

Lutherf

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
49,520
Reaction score
55,161
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I'm just curious, why did the court choose not to hear this case? Kennedy, Alito and Roberts were all in on the Heller and McDonald decisions but opted to sit this one out for some reason.

We know why Thomas and Gorsuch wanted to take the case but there is nothing the other justices provided to give an indication of why they didn't.
 
Lutherf said:
I'm just curious, why did the court choose not to hear this case? Kennedy, Alito and Roberts were all in on the Heller and McDonald decisions but opted to sit this one out for some reason.

We know why Thomas and Gorsuch wanted to take the case but there is nothing the other justices provided to give an indication of why they didn't.
Click to expand...

Wow. What an unexpected turn. I hadn't seen this, so thanks for posting it.

I immediately went to find and read the Thomas/Gorsuch dissent. Here it is for anyone else that wants to read it as well: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-894_p86b.pdf

I thought Justice Thomas laid out exactly why the State of California law and Ninth Circuit are dead wrong, and must be overturned to protect the 2nd Amendment.

Again, WOW! I, too, can't understand why Kennedy, Alioto, or even Roberts passed on this case. Maybe they know about a case in the pipeline that would be a better opportunity to shut down state infringements upon the Right to Bear Arms, which this is.
 
Unless they decide to say so, we'll never know why.
 
As Justice Thomas noted, this is not the first time he has dissented from a denial of cert in a Second Amendment case. I'm hoping Justice Kennedy will retire soon and give President Trump a chance to appoint a second justice. Then, maybe, we will have a Supreme Court which will start to show the Second Amendment right the respect it deserves.
 
Lutherf said:
I'm just curious, why did the court choose not to hear this case? Kennedy, Alito and Roberts were all in on the Heller and McDonald decisions but opted to sit this one out for some reason.

We know why Thomas and Gorsuch wanted to take the case but there is nothing the other justices provided to give an indication of why they didn't.
Click to expand...

I would think that at this time there was just not enough evidence to countermand the California law of showing cause; I think that 'show cause' covers Hawaii as well, but don't quote me on that.
 
jet57 said:
I would think that at this time there was just not enough evidence to countermand the California law of showing cause; I think that 'show cause' covers Hawaii as well, but don't quote me on that.
Click to expand...

That was the 9th circuit en banc position but that decision overtly ignored (in fact, made a point to ignore) the fact that "may issue" combined with a state prohibition on open carry is a de facto ban on carrying for self defense outside the home.
 
Lutherf said:
That was the 9th circuit en banc position but that decision overtly ignored (in fact, made a point to ignore) the fact that "may issue" combined with a state prohibition on open carry is a de facto ban on carrying for self defense outside the home.
Click to expand...


I don't think the court ignored anything. I think that at this time, they are letting the 10th amendment take it's course. As I've shown before; dating to our new American colonial period, restrictions on carrying guns in towns and cities has always been on the books, so this is really no different.
 
jet57 said:
I don't think the court ignored anything. I think that at this time, they are letting the 10th amendment take it's course. As I've shown before; dating to our new American colonial period, restrictions on carrying guns in towns and cities has always been on the books, so this is really no different.
Click to expand...

You can certainly think whatever you like but the en banc decision Is specific in ignoring the question of a de facto ban.
 
jet57 said:
I don't think the court ignored anything. I think that at this time, they are letting the 10th amendment take it's course. As I've shown before; dating to our new American colonial period, restrictions on carrying guns in towns and cities has always been on the books, so this is really no different.
Click to expand...

Yet the 10th Amendment was not allowed to take its course with regards to abortion or gay marriage.
 
Lutherf said:
I'm just curious, why did the court choose not to hear this case? Kennedy, Alito and Roberts were all in on the Heller and McDonald decisions but opted to sit this one out for some reason.

We know why Thomas and Gorsuch wanted to take the case but there is nothing the other justices provided to give an indication of why they didn't.
Click to expand...

as I noted in another post on another thread-state powers to regulate how people carry loaded weapons in public have long been seen as a state power that was not something the federal government could interfere with. Now that McDonald applied the second amendment to states, we will have period of time where the conflict is unsettled. Since CCW is really not something federal law has much experience with, the court is being overly deferential. I believe the court will refine McDonald with the idiotic Fourth Circuit bit of idiocy written by Clinton Appointee Judge King which allows bans of "military style Rifles" which clearly runs against Heller.
 
matchlight said:
As Justice Thomas noted, this is not the first time he has dissented from a denial of cert in a Second Amendment case. I'm hoping Justice Kennedy will retire soon and give President Trump a chance to appoint a second justice. Then, maybe, we will have a Supreme Court which will start to show the Second Amendment right the respect it deserves.
Click to expand...

People I trust who were once supreme court clerks (though before Heller) including One of Kennedy's first clerks, have indicated that Kennedy was on the fence and Scalia had to "bribe him" to join the correct decision with all that nonsense who some infringements were proper. I'd rather see hard core bannerrhoids like Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor retire or leave before Kennedy but replacing Kennedy with another judge like CT would be a good improvement
 
TurtleDude said:
People I trust who were once supreme court clerks (though before Heller) including One of Kennedy's first clerks, have indicated that Kennedy was on the fence and Scalia had to "bribe him" to join the correct decision with all that nonsense who some infringements were proper. I'd rather see hard core bannerrhoids like Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor retire or leave before Kennedy but replacing Kennedy with another judge like CT would be a good improvement
Click to expand...

I doubt the Wise Latina will be leaving any time soon. But rumors keep surfacing that Kennedy is about to announce his retirement. If so, good riddance. The four majority decisions he authored in the Court's "gay" cases--in Romer, Lawrence, Windsor, and Obergefell--are right down there with Blackmun's decision in Roe as some of the most intellectually dishonest concoction the Court has ever engaged in. So is the piece of garbage Kennedy cobbled together in Casey. Even Dred Scott looks good beside that tripe.
 
TurtleDude said:
as I noted in another post on another thread-state powers to regulate how people carry loaded weapons in public have long been seen as a state power that was not something the federal government could interfere with. Now that McDonald applied the second amendment to states, we will have period of time where the conflict is unsettled. Since CCW is really not something federal law has much experience with, the court is being overly deferential. I believe the court will refine McDonald with the idiotic Fourth Circuit bit of idiocy written by Clinton Appointee Judge King which allows bans of "military style Rifles" which clearly runs against Heller.
Click to expand...

Well, if they tell me I can't carry my M-4 concealed I guess that's just something I'm going to have to adapt to.:doh
 
Lutherf said:
You can certainly think whatever you like but the en banc decision Is specific in ignoring the question of a de facto ban.
Click to expand...

Again, the action hinges on "carrying in some form". "Some form" can included carrying unloaded or carrying by permit only. Again, the SC obviously felt that there just is not enough to countermand a state law on carrying concealed guns.

These "test cases" waste a lot of time in my view.
 
jet57 said:
Again, the action hinges on "carrying in some form". "Some form" can included carrying unloaded or carrying by permit only. Again, the SC obviously felt that there just is not enough to countermand a state law on carrying concealed guns.

These "test cases" waste a lot of time in my view.
Click to expand...

You may be correct in what you feel was the reason behind the denial of cert, but, there's nothing obvious about the SCOTUS' reasons for doing so, and we will probably never know unless some retiring Justice writes and publishes their memoires which may include this case.
 
Beaudreaux said:
You may be correct in what you feel was the reason behind the denial of cert, but, there's nothing obvious about the SCOTUS' reasons for doing so, and we will probably never know unless some retiring Justice writes and publishes their memoires which may include this case.
Click to expand...

I think that there is something obvious about it, and it's really clear if you think about it. Secondly, these test cases are put on by the likes of Turtledude's crowd and they want to push the envelope to open up the gates on what ever gun you wanna own and carry anywhere ya' wanna carry it. It's about sales. I think that the justices are smart enough to be able see that tornado on the horizon and I think they don't want any part of it. We passed the 10th amendment in 1791 and it's served US well since then and has allowed gun control laws to exist in cities and states since that time. The Trurtledude crowd wants to reshape the second amendment into their own image for purely narcissistic reasons and feed the sedition of the "militia movement" as well. It's all a joke aimed at people who are gullible and live in a sort of paranoia that they think links them to the founders in some sort of patriotic utopia. People in this country are too smart for that man.


Consider my signature: people saw it then.
 
matchlight said:
I doubt the Wise Latina will be leaving any time soon. But rumors keep surfacing that Kennedy is about to announce his retirement. If so, good riddance. The four majority decisions he authored in the Court's "gay" cases--in Romer, Lawrence, Windsor, and Obergefell--are right down there with Blackmun's decision in Roe as some of the most intellectually dishonest concoction the Court has ever engaged in. So is the piece of garbage Kennedy cobbled together in Casey. Even Dred Scott looks good beside that tripe.
Click to expand...

Lulz. They only thing intellectually dishonest about those decisions were the idiotic dissents that accompanied them, esp. Obergefell.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Lulz. They only thing intellectually dishonest about those decisions were the idiotic dissents that accompanied them, esp. Obergefell.
Click to expand...

steven's dissent in Heller was a low mark of dishonest nonsense. His main argument went like this

1) I cannot imagine the founders would have created a federal government that did not have the power to ban guns (in reality they did-they never figured people would want to ban guns who were actual patriots-and gun regulations as to use was a state matter)

2) therefore, the federal government needs to have that power that the founders could not have possibly neglected to give it

part two

Lower courts that wanted to support racist or anti "papist" gun control laws intentionally misread CRUIKSHANK (that correctly held that the constitution did not CREATE a RKBA [but merely recognized a right the founders all believed pre-existed the constitution]) by claiming since CRUIKSHANK held that the bill for rights did not CREATE THE RIGHT it did not exist.

Stevens claimed the Supreme court should be BOUND by those LOWER COURT decisions which clearly misrepresented SUPREME COURT holdings

Stevens is a classic case of a gun hater who puts his agenda ahead of intellectual honesty or actually following the constitution
 
TurtleDude said:
steven's dissent in Heller was a low mark of dishonest nonsense. His main argument went like this

1) I cannot imagine the founders would have created a federal government that did not have the power to ban guns (in reality they did-they never figured people would want to ban guns who were actual patriots-and gun regulations as to use was a state matter)

2) therefore, the federal government needs to have that power that the founders could not have possibly neglected to give it

part two

Lower courts that wanted to support racist or anti "papist" gun control laws intentionally misread CRUIKSHANK (that correctly held that the constitution did not CREATE a RKBA [but merely recognized a right the founders all believed pre-existed the constitution]) by claiming since CRUIKSHANK held that the bill for rights did not CREATE THE RIGHT it did not exist.

Stevens claimed the Supreme court should be BOUND by those LOWER COURT decisions which clearly misrepresented SUPREME COURT holdings

Stevens is a classic case of a gun hater who puts his agenda ahead of intellectual honesty or actually following the constitution
Click to expand...

You'll forgive me, but I was only refencing the decisions cited in what I replied to by the homosexually-obsessed poster.

Romer, Lawrence, Windsor, and Obergefell.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
You'll forgive me, but I was only refencing the decisions cited in what I replied to by the homosexually-obsessed poster.

Romer, Lawrence, Windsor, and Obergefell.
Click to expand...

I understand that-I was just using that to steer things back to the supreme court and 2nd amendment issues. I do find it interesting that SOME who work so hard to pretend there is no individual right guaranteed by the second are often the same who work equally hard to find that the 9th or perhaps the 14th amendments prevent states from banning same sex marriage or homosexual sodomy
 
jet57 said:
I think that there is something obvious about it, and it's really clear if you think about it. Secondly, these test cases are put on by the likes of Turtledude's crowd and they want to push the envelope to open up the gates on what ever gun you wanna own and carry anywhere ya' wanna carry it. It's about sales. I think that the justices are smart enough to be able see that tornado on the horizon and I think they don't want any part of it. We passed the 10th amendment in 1791 and it's served US well since then and has allowed gun control laws to exist in cities and states since that time. The Trurtledude crowd wants to reshape the second amendment into their own image for purely narcissistic reasons and feed the sedition of the "militia movement" as well. It's all a joke aimed at people who are gullible and live in a sort of paranoia that they think links them to the founders in some sort of patriotic utopia. People in this country are too smart for that man.


Consider my signature: people saw it then.
Click to expand...

That has to be one of the most arrogant posts I've ever read on here. To claim, by what I presume you feel is some form of virtuous brilliance on your part that even the legal scholars that study the Supreme Court daily do not posses, that you know what was in the minds of the Supreme Court when they have made no comment of any sort to substantiate even the slightest presumption of their thought process is the height of self deluded arrogance.
 
Beaudreaux said:
That has to be one of the most arrogant posts I've ever read on here. To claim, by what I presume you feel is some form of virtuous brilliance on your part that even the legal scholars that study the Supreme Court daily do not posses, that you know what was in the minds of the Supreme Court when they have made no comment of any sort to substantiate even the slightest presumption of their thought process is the height of self deluded arrogance.
Click to expand...

Look who it is. Did you expect any different?
 
Beaudreaux said:
That has to be one of the most arrogant posts I've ever read on here. To claim, by what I presume you feel is some form of virtuous brilliance on your part that even the legal scholars that study the Supreme Court daily do not posses, that you know what was in the minds of the Supreme Court when they have made no comment of any sort to substantiate even the slightest presumption of their thought process is the height of self deluded arrogance.
Click to expand...

So you have no credible counter point or argument then; it;s all personal for you....

Got it
 
Beaudreaux said:
Wow. What an unexpected turn. I hadn't seen this, so thanks for posting it.

I immediately went to find and read the Thomas/Gorsuch dissent. Here it is for anyone else that wants to read it as well: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-894_p86b.pdf

I thought Justice Thomas laid out exactly why the State of California law and Ninth Circuit are dead wrong, and must be overturned to protect the 2nd Amendment.

Again, WOW! I, too, can't understand why Kennedy, Alioto, or even Roberts passed on this case. Maybe they know about a case in the pipeline that would be a better opportunity to shut down state infringements upon the Right to Bear Arms, which this is.
Click to expand...

So much for gun rights guys banking on SCOTUS to back them. I guess, it's 7-2 for states rights and believe the right to carry is not protected by the 2nd.

I have to say, this is a surprise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom