Posted on 12/07/2014 7:31:46 AM PST by marktwain
In the ongoing saga of Peruta v. County of San Diego, another procedural turn; a judge on the Ninth Circuit has called for a vote to determine if the Circuit will hear the case en banc. This is a call for a vote to review the original decision, not to hear the appeal of the denial of the request to intervene by Attorney General Kamala Harris of California. Here is the Order, from the pdf:
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, THOMAS, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.It is unknown how soon the vote on whether to hear the case en banc will occur after the briefs are received.
A judge of this Court having made a sua sponte call for a vote on whether this case should be reheard en banc, the parties shall file, within 21 days from the date of this order, simultaneous briefs setting forth their respective positions on whether this case should be reheard en banc. See G.O. 5.4(c)(3). Amici curiae wishing to file briefs regarding whether this case should be reheard en banc may also do so within 21 days from the date of this order.
I didn't know this covered open carry. What would happen if someone tried to open carry?
Rightly or wrongly, had I my way, and the power, I would resize the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to the size of a postage stamp in the Greyhound/Trailways Bus Station mens stall (third on the right) bathroom. Subject to prior use of the glory hole.
For those enquiring minds, that bathroom would be in downtown San Francisco.
The tyrants won’t give up on the Peruta case.
Would that be in any kind of specific business or are you referring to Nancy Pelosi's house?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En_banc
En banc
In law, an en banc session is a session where a case is heard before all the judges of a court – in other words, before the entire bench – rather than by a panel selected from them.[1][2] The equivalent terms in banc, in banco or in bank are also sometimes seen.
En banc is often used for unusually complex cases or cases considered to be of greater importance.[2] Appellate courts in the United States sometimes grant rehearing en banc to reconsider a decision of a panel of the court (generally consisting of only three judges) in which the case concerns a matter of exceptional public importance or the panel’s decision appears to conflict with a prior decision of the court.[3] In rarer instances, an appellate court will order hearing en banc as an initial matter instead of the panel hearing it first.
Some appellate courts, such as the Supreme Court of the United States and the highest courts of most U.S. states, do not sit in panels, but hear all of their cases en banc (with the exception of cases where a judge is ill or recused). This differs from most countries outside of the United States, where true en banc sessions of appellate courts are the exception or simply do not exist.
When the open carry activists in California asserted their rights to *unloaded* open carry, the California legislature banned it.
The Ninth Circuit cited this as a reason why they ruled against Sheriff Gore in Peruta. They said that you can ban one way or the other, but you cannot ban both open and concealed carry.
So the open carry activism is directly responsible for the ruling in Peruta. Without it, the judges could have said, will, you do not have to carry concealed, you can open carry.
All federal courts but the Supreme Court are creatures of Congress and can be abolished or split up according to the dictates thereof.
And that is what I am suggesting....
Subject to Presidential signature, or is this purely a function of the Congress?
The 9th Circuit said that California has to issue permits for either open carry or concealed carry-- it can ban one, but not both. So the final choice will be up to the state legislature.
Like any law, it would require either presidential signature or overriding a veto.
The 9th Circuit gets one right, and you want to abolish it?
Actually? Yes. The history of its rulings is on my side, IMO.
Sohhh, they can just vote to review their own decision?
Hottie, Kommie, Kamilla worked them behind the scenes and influenced or induced this odd decision?
Hopefully, the rest of the Black Robe Klan will say “No”.
It is the whole Ninth Circuit voting to review the decision of a three judge panel.
It is not common, but it does happen.
Any judge can call for the vote, but a majority of the justices have to agree to it.
Congress doesn’t do anything without presidential approval (or overriding a presidential veto) except (AFAIK) propose constitutional amendments (which in any case requires 2/3 majorities in both houses) and impeachment.
I’ve never seen a case get reviewed en banc without a party appealing to the full court.
My suspicion is that even the leftists are afraid to take on a ruling like this because they are unsure of what would happen if reviewed by SCOTUS.
If I had to guess I would surmise that Kennedy is happy to let Helker and its progeny unfold like this, and he may have tipped his hand to some lower court judges to that affect.
That’s pure speculation on my part, but it would explain why Illinois didn’t appeal a very similar decision by the 7th Circuit.
I for one am happy to let the cases play out like this, as I’m not so confident in SCOTUS.
Also, I wish we knew which judge asked for review.
If I had to bet I would say that they will pass on hearing this case.
There has been a lot of reliance on this opinion, and taking it up could be risky business.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.