|
Absolutely correct. In most cases, oral argument is not scheduled until at least two of the three assigned justices have agreed on a tentative decision, and it is a rare case where they change their minds based on something argued at orals. Where you lose at orals is where you trip over your own feet and make an unfortunate admission that undercuts your case. Such was the case in Nordyke v, King, where the Ninth Circuit was poised to render an important decision that necessarily would have defined the standard of review, but an admission by counsel for the County at oral argument that it would indeed allow gun shows on county property despite the ban mooted the entire case. Five years and hundreds of thousands of dollars wasted, and a slew of other cases delayed pending that decision. For example, the challenge to the California Safe Roster (Pena v. Cid) was stayed pending Nordyke, as were the three cases attacking the "may issue" requirement for CCW.
Not that this matters much--the carry cases were argued last December, and my guess is we will not see any decisions on these cases until the Supreme Court decides the cert petition in Woollard. I suspect that a decision by the Ninth Circuit on the may issue shall issue conundrum would definitely trigger review in Woollard--which is why it won't happen. We'll know soon enough--Woollard is set for conference next week.
[There is also the possibility that if the Woollard petition is granted, the Ninth will stay the cases it has pending, thus avoiding an issue it seems to want to avoid, rather than add its voice to the determination of the issue.]
|