The PROPER thing for the Supreme Court should do is put any District Court ruling on hold while it is being appealed...then the 9th Circuit can do whatever they want, but it will be meaningless until dispositioned by the Supreme Court.
liberal georgetown law spin?
if obama was doing this, would it not be heralded as a bold legal masterstroke by a proclaimed constitutional law scholar president?
First time I've heard that expression in my life.
I'm going out on a limb and saying that Lydia Wheeler pulled the concept out of her rear end.
Where in the Constitution does it say the Supreme Court has to be “ready” to hear a case?
Ok, so when the SC becomes definitely more conservative, we can expect Congressional democrats to try to bust it up, right? You KNOW they aren’t going to let the court be conservative without trying to change the rules. Again. (Never mind that they were perfectly happy when the balance of the court was liberal.)
Why not? It’s not like the Ninth Circus is worth listening to. Everyone knows their predictable decisions.
here’s a suggestion RBG recuse herself from all “Trump cases” because of poltical comments she made during the election.
How queer, one weird trick to bypass judicial review and exective power.
But “Trump”....
Not one in ten realize the 17th Amendment so much as preordained a far-Left judiciary. We can howl at the sky all we want, but the situation will only get worse as Congress happily watches federal courts assume more power.
As an example of they way things used to happen...
On June 2, 1938, Jack Miller and Frank Layton indicted on a charge of transporting a sawed-off shotgun from Claremore, Arkansas to Siloam Springs, Arkansas on April 18, 1938.
On June 11,1938, United States District Judge Heartsill Ragon issued an opinion swashing the indictment. His opinion:
The indictment is based upon the Act of June 26, 1934, c.757, Section 11, 48 Statute 1239. The court is of the opinion that this section is invalid in that it violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States providing, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The two were re-indicted on September 21, 1938.
On January 3, 1939 United States District Judge Heartsill Ragon once again issued an opinion squashing the indictment.
The indictment is based upon the Act of June 26, 1934, C.757, Section 11, 48 Statute 1239. The court is of the opinion that this section is invalid in that it violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States providing, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The government appealed on January 30, 1939
The government filed it's appeal to the Supreme Court in March of 1939.
On May 15, 1939, the Supreme Court issued the rather (in)famous Miller decision based on the lies told to it by the government. Miller was not actually represented before the court.
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.
Emphasis mine.
So, Jack Miller was originally arrested on April 18, 1938, and the final opinion of the Supreme Court was issued on May 15 1939.
Documentation for all of the above is available on my website here.. The timeline is quite different from what we see today is it not?