From what I've heard in (I think the article ramping up the DOMA challenge) it's something of a naughty no-no to vote to grant cert on a case you already decided to uphold.
In other words, I'm under the impression it's not "illegal" but it's not very kosher to vote to grant cert to something, if you have no intention of changing the decision, but you just want to rubber stamp the lower court's decision.
ETA: I suspect that the swing vote in this case has a very narrow path they swing on. A right to bear arms, but not out in public. And only for people more pure than driven snow. We can be thankful they're holding the line, but we shouldn't expect a whole lot more. At this point, I suspect the only cases we have a reliable shot at winning would be procedural over activistic. I think we have more of a chance (re-)challenging the lack of ability to redress grievances in the 2A/closed office scenario than trying to get the judges to say someone who is prohibited shouldn't be prohibited. And that won't be a cakewalk.
Part of me wishes the judges were given LESS information- or were better at separating their politics from the law.
Last edited by JimDandy; November 6, 2013 at 07:58 AM.