Originally Posted by JimDandy
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 your view, how does that mesh with Scalia's interview in which he says he "already know[s] the law", i.e., already knows the correct way (in his view, obviously) to vote on a case?
If he already knows how he'll vote on all of these cases, how can he, in good conscience, grant cert to any? OTOH, why would it be a naughty no-no to grant cert when you already know your vote but there's a circuit split and our rights need clarification? The nation needs a unifying decision for consistent application of law, doesn't it?
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.
Let's assume you're correct. Is there a likely explanation for why wasn't this mentioned in Heller
? Why then the language in Heller
implying a right to bear in public, when they could have clearly stomped it out, right then?