Will they take the case? CCW permit case heading to SCOTUS.

[T.O.M.]

Two California men were denied CCW permits in Cali.  Both appealed and lost.  Indications are that they are heading to SCOTUS.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Court-sets-California-gun-carry-case-on-path-to-9144507.php?cmpid=twitter-desktop

Interested to see if this ends up a straight "party line" vote, and to see the legal logic used by both sides.  Sad thing is that it may just end up 4-4.

[Fly320s]

I'm not sure I want this case to go to SCOTUS.  I think at best we will get a 4-4 decision which will affect all of the US, not just California.

[230RN]

FYI only, no opinion on my part:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certiorari

Since the Judiciary Act of 1925 and the Supreme Court Case Selections Act of 1988,[17] most cases cannot be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States as a matter of right. A party who wants the Supreme Court to review a decision of a federal or state court files a "petition for writ of certiorari" in the Supreme Court. A "petition" is printed in booklet format and 40 copies are filed with the Court.[18] If the Court grants the petition, the case is scheduled for the filing of briefs and for oral argument. A minimum of four of the nine Justices is required to grant a writ of certiorari, referred to as the "rule of four". The court denies the vast majority of petitions and thus leaves the decision of the lower court to stand without review; it takes roughly 80 to 150 cases each term. In the term that concluded in June 2009, for example, 8,241 petitions were filed, with a grant rate of approximately 1.1 percent.[19] Cases on the paid certiorari docket are substantially more likely to be granted than those on the in forma pauperis docket.[20] The Supreme Court is generally careful to choose only cases over which the Court has jurisdiction and which the Court considers sufficiently important, such as cases involving deep constitutional questions, to merit the use of its limited resources. See also Cert pool. While both appeals of right and cert petitions often present several alleged errors of the lower courts for appellate review, the Court normally grants review only of one or two questions presented in a certiorari petition.

The Supreme Court sometimes grants a writ of certiorari to resolve a "circuit split", when the federal appeals courts in two (or more) federal judicial circuits have ruled differently in similar situations. These are often called "percolating issues."

Opinion on my part:

Judges and all them lawyer types should be required to speak and understand plain English.

Like "percolatin' issues."  I like that.

(Sorry, Chris.)

Terry

[T.O.M.]

FYI only, no opinion on my part:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certiorari

Opinion on my part:

Judges and all them lawyer types should be required to speak and understand plain English.

Like "percolatin' issues."  I like that.

(Sorry, Chris.)

Terry

No offense taken.  I hate when lawyers try to show off talking legalese to impress people.  A judge I respected once told me that a good lawyer knows what all of that legal language means.  A great lawyer can explain the idea to a non-lawyer without using legalese.

(Edited because I managed to stick my response in the middle of the quote).

[MechAg94]

No offense taken.  I hate when lawyers try to show off talking legalese to impress people.  A judge I respected once told me that a good lawyer knows what all of that legal language means.  A great lawyer can explain the idea to a non-lawyer without using legalese.

(Edited because I managed to stick my response in the middle of the quote).

That often applies to engineers and other technical fields also.

[230RN]

It would appear to me, from other readings on this, that our best bet for an outcome would be that cert not be granted, thereby leaving the problem in California.

Otherwise, with a risky balance of an 8-member Court, a negative (from our point of view) decision might (might) be binding on the whole friggin country.

Possible outcomes if cert granted, assuming equal or unknown probabilities:

A majority favoring 9th. ("Bad.")

A majority rejecting 9th.  ("Good.")

A tie.  ("Bad.")

I don't think I'd "draw to that hand."

That's what I'm picking up on the problem, but I ain't no lawyer neither nohow.

Hell, I'm not even a good poker player.

Terry

[Pb]

Since Scalia died, there is no hope. 

[Phantom Warrior]

I'm not sure I want this case to go to SCOTUS.  I think at best we will get a 4-4 decision which will affect all of the US, not just California.

Split decisions affirm the lower court's ruling without setting a nation wide precedent.  So basically we would end up with the status quo ante.  Dumb decision by the 9th Circuit but only precedent for the 9th Circuit.  Not a win but not exactly a loss either.

[longeyes]

There's hope.  But it doesn't lie with SCOTUS.  Everyone on this forum knows that.