|
Very sweet supplement. And yes, I think that the Supremes are very much interested in accepting a case now that the Ninth has spoken--at least as long as the Peruta decision stands. If en banc is granted, the panel decision evaporates, and then we have to wait to see what the en banc panel has to say. In that circumstance, granting cert in Drake is iffy because the dramatic split caused by O'Scanlain's opinion disappears.
Gura is absolutely correct that Pruta's path to the Supreme Court is uncertain. True, Gore has backed out, but there are now pending three motions to intervene, two of which (by the Brady campaign and the California Police Chiefs Association) are almost certain to fail. And from a pure legal perspective, the motion filed by State Attorney General Harris should be denied as well-and her and her staff attorney sanctioned for filing a frivolous brief--as the AG has repeatedly declined invitations to participate, and in fact successfully moved to dismiss a case that named the AG on the basis that the AG does not have the authority to direct the sheriffs' exercise of discretion in determining "good cause" under the statute. But there is the political angle as well--allowing her to intervene almost assuredly guarantees an appeal to the Supreme Court if the decision stands. With Drake pending and PEruta applying, I would think that a grant of cert is highly likely--the issue is ripe for the court's institutional review.
The fast track to the Supreme Court is to grant AG's motion to intervene, and then deny the petition for rehearing. I'll keep my fingers crossed.
|