|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 9, 2013, 11:32 AM | #51 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,817
|
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
July 9, 2013, 09:08 PM | #52 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,137
|
I agree with Spats. It's probably difficult for most folks to understand but states often do not file a response unless ordered to do so by the Supreme Court. MANY petitions for cert are weeded out by staff review of the petition without a response.
|
July 10, 2013, 08:04 AM | #53 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Generally, if there is no response to the petition, the Court will in almost all the cases, deny cert.
This is where I had a problem. In all the cases that I've watched, shortly after the filing of the waiver to respond, there is always an order "inviting" a response by a particular date. My understanding of this is that one (or perhaps, more) of the Justices is slightly interested. Inviting a response does not indicate that cert will be granted. It merely moves you out of the immediate path for a denial (which can still come later). In this instance, an order was not issued. The docket simply extends the time for a response. Searching the various orders of the court, turns up nothing that pertains to this case. My thinking is that this is one of the clerks doing the "inviting." Hence my improper use of the term, sua sponte. |
October 12, 2013, 04:40 AM | #54 |
Member
Join Date: September 7, 2011
Posts: 22
|
It would appear that lane did get a response from the government, even if it amounts to a rather short pontification on the governments part. It was ripped up Gura in the response>
Unfortunately I have lost my login to PACER so this will have to do. http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files...lane-v-holder/ |
October 12, 2013, 06:50 AM | #55 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 228
|
It's only an issue of standing in this case. So if we win we simply get a trip back to the lower court to actually address the real issue.
|
October 14, 2013, 08:37 AM | #56 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
If the Court habitually denies Cert to a petition without a response, why would anyone ever respond?
|
October 14, 2013, 01:55 PM | #57 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
This case, as it is currently filed for cert, is only about standing. I fully expect the SCOTUS to Grant, Vacate and Remand (GVR). It is a simple (and wholly correct) solution.
|
October 15, 2013, 08:55 AM | #58 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,417
|
This case isn't in today's list of orders, so...they're still thinking about it?
That's what I would expect if they're going to GVR it, so it's lack in this list is probably a good thing: http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/c...13zor_4g25.pdf
__________________
Jim March |
October 15, 2013, 08:56 AM | #59 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The case was not listed in the orders currently filed: Order List
There may be misc. orders filed later today. |
October 25, 2013, 10:38 PM | #60 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The last conference for the month of Oct. was the 18th. In the orders for last Mon., Lane was not listed. We can safely assume that Lane is still alive. For now.
Next conference date is Fri. Nov. 1. |
November 4, 2013, 01:46 PM | #61 |
Member
Join Date: September 7, 2011
Posts: 22
|
Still nothing on Lane from today's orders. Must be in the court equivalent of the witness protection program.
|
November 5, 2013, 06:18 AM | #62 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 228
|
It would seem the case is being held for a GVR possibly, but in light of what other case I don't know.
|
November 6, 2013, 04:58 PM | #63 |
Member
Join Date: October 16, 2012
Posts: 69
|
In Gura's reply brief, he suggested that the Court hold Lane for the NRA case on 18-20 year old purchases and dispose of the Lane petition in light of its disposition in NRA. You will recall that the NRA case sustained standing of purchasers and the 5th Circuit's decision is thus in conflict with Lane on the standing point. The Court will well have decided to hold Lane pending NRA. Risky approach. I don't have high hopes for cert in NRA.
|
Tags |
alan gura , saf , second amendment |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|