Replies

My sense is that the "fix" was in. By that I mean that the fifth circuit laid out the "individual right" case so thouroughly and then let the Emerson verdict stand on such a thin thread, relatively speaking, that it's almost like they were inducing Emerson to appeal to the SCOTUS. If they had found completely in favor of Emerson, I doubt the government side would have appealed to SCOTUS for a number of reasons.

What I don't have a sense about is whether or not SCOTUS was in on the fix. I don't know if these guys talk to each other that much.

...the fifth circuit laid out the "individual right" case so thouroughly and then let the Emerson verdict stand on such a thin thread, relatively speaking, that it's almost like they were inducing Emerson to appeal to the SCOTUS.

I wondered about that myself, KrisKrinkle. Somehow, though, I don't suspect the Supreme Court was in on a "fix." My sense is they do not correspond face-to-face beyond a few regularly scheduled meetings, though they exchange written correspondence on a very frequent basis (e.g., that's how opinions and dissents get composed, among other things.) And they do "read each other"'s occasional publuc statements. They even socialize -- but not "on-duty."

I get the distinct sense that each of the Justices is jealous of his or her own judicial independence and reputation for integrity. That is, no matter what the Left might want people to believe, the Supreme Court of the United States is highly unlikely to be some sort of nefarious cabal plotting political coups against the American people.

As an illustration of judicial independence, I'm reminded of Ruth Bader Ginsberg's confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiiciary Committee. Senator Feinstein positively grilled her for hints as to how she would handle "politically-sensitive" cases, preeminently "gun control." Judge Ginsberg ditched her six ways to Sunday every time Feinstein came at her. She refused to make any statement whatever characterizing her "judicial philosophy," and expressed mystification as to why Feinstein would be asking her all these hypothetical questions, when a Justice's business is with the real, living world of constitutional jurisprudence -- not with making someone or other's political fantasies come true.

I have admired Ginsberg ever since, for the way she handled herself on what must have been, for her, a critically important day in her distinguished career. I thought she demonstrated character, integrity -- and judicial temperament to a tee.

The best part is, notwithstanding she was a Clinton appointee, the Democrats were forced to vote for her as if she were "a pig in a poke" -- she told them absolutely nothing about how she would rule on cases, if confirmed.

As I recall, she was confirmed by a Republican majority on a full floor vote, with virtually every single Dem on board. And I'm glad she was.

Anyhoot, I'm on tenterhooks, ever since I learned of Emerson's Petition. This case is about ever so much more than simply "gun rights." JMHO FWIW. Thank you, Kris, with all my best, bb.