Supreme Court

Uncategorized

A Sign Of Things To Come?

February 20, 2019 by 5 Comments

Rogers et al v. Gurbir Grewal et al is a case from New Jersey that is a challenge to the state’s may-issue concealed carry law. It is currently on appeal to the Supreme Court seeking a writ of certiorari after the Third Circuit said New Jersey’s law met intermediate scrutiny.

In late January, the attorneys for New Jersey filed a waiver saying they didn’t intended to file a response to the petition for a writ of certiorari by Thomas Rogers and the New Jersey Association of Rifle and Pistol Clubs. This could be taken as a sign that New Jersey fully expected the Supreme Court to summarily deny the petition for a writ of certiorari.

As Guns.com reported earlier today, the Supreme Court has now issued an order requiring New Jersey to file a response by March 21st.

The Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs issued a release yesterday that said, in part:

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court required the State of New Jersey to file a brief in response to ANJRPC’s petition asking the High Court to hear its challenge to NJ’s carry laws. Under the Supreme Court’s order, the State of New Jersey is required to file papers by March 21, arguing why the High Court should not agree to hear ANJRPC’s appeal. NJ had previously ignored the appeal.


While the move is not a guarantee that the Supreme Court will agree to hear the appeal, the fact that the court is requiring NJ to take a position on ANJRPC’s request is significant, and signals that the court is not willing to take any action without first hearing from both sides.

The case has attracted a number of amicus briefs on behalf of Rogers and ANJRPC. These include briefs from the National African American Gun Association,  a number of law enforcement groups and state gun associations, the Second Amendment Foundation, the National Rifle Association, and the American Civil Rights Union. There is also an amicus brief in support of Rogers from the attorney generals and governors of 24 states which was organized by Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich.

As the petition for the writ notes, Mr. Rogers met all the requirements for a carry permit from the state of New Jersey with the exception of showing a direct threat to his life. He has been robbed at gun point and manages an ATM service company which, by definition, involves large amounts of cash. Police in Wall Township, NJ agreed he met the training eligibility requirements but “he failed to show Justifiable Need.”

One can only hope that this move by the Supreme Court is a positive sign and that they will finally take up a carry case. This is especially true as there are diverging opinions between the circuits as well as a divergence in the proper level of scrutiny.

Uncategorized

NY State Rife & Pistol Case Unnerves Brady Campaign

January 24, 2019 by 6 Comments

I had been waiting to see the response of the gun prohibitionists to the Supreme Court granting certiorari in NY State Rifle & Pistol v. City of New York. Jonathan Lowy, head of the Brady Campaign’s Legal Project, didn’t disappoint. A fundraising email was sent out yesterday under his signature yesterday afternoon.

He said, in part, that the stakes are high and it is a case of “life and death”.

The Supreme Court announced yesterday that, for the first time in almost a decade, it will hear a Second Amendment case – the first gun case to be decided by a Court with two Donald Trump-appointees. The case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, challenges a city ordinance governing transportation of firearms. Make no mistake: the stakes could not be higher. Commonsense gun safety laws across the country are at risk. We need your support to make sure that the voices of Americans who want stronger gun regulation are heard loudly in the Supreme Court.


The stakes for this case are nothing short of life and death. Whatever the Supreme Court says in its decision will help determine whether Americans maintain the right to enact the strong, commonsense public safety laws they want and need to protect loved ones and communities from gun violence, or if judges will take this right from us. But the Framers put “well-regulated” in the Second Amendment and “the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence for good reason. We are committed to making sure the Supreme Court doesn’t write the gun industry’s guns-everywhere vision into our Constitution.

 He goes on to say that the Supreme Court never meant the Second Amendment to apply outside the home as evidenced by the Heller decision. In my opinion, he has misconstrued the late Justice Scalia’s decision.

What is interesting about all of this is that none of the gun prohibitionist organizations bothered to file amicus briefs against the Supreme Court granting cert in this case. The only amicus briefs were from a coalition including GOA, another organized by the Attorney General of Louisiana on behalf of a number of states, and another from the Western States Sheriffs Association and various law enforcement groups. These all were in favor of cert being granted. I don’t know whether it was hubris or ignorance that explains the casual approach of the gun control industry to this case but I am certain they will now be submitting amicus briefs fast and furiously in support of the position of New York City.

Uncategorized

Knife Rights Will Appeal NY “Gravity Knife” Case To SCOTUS

November 5, 2018 by

Knife Rights has announced that they will appeal their long-running case against New York over the definition of gravity knives to the Supreme Court. The case centers around common folding knives that have been the target of enforcement by the NYPD and the Manhattan District Attorney. The victims of this unjust definition have usually been trades people and minorities.

From Knife Rights on their plan to appeal:

Knife Rights’ NYC Gravity Knife Case Appeal Headed To U.S. Supreme Court

Knife
Rights is going forward with an appeal to the Supreme Court of the
United States of the Second Circuit’s decision in favor of New York City
and District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. in our long running civil rights
lawsuit over their persecution of pocket knife owners.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg last week granted us a 60-day extension
until January 13th, 2019, for submission of our petition for a writ of
certiorari asking the Court to hear our appeal.

While our
lawsuit against New York City and DA Vance centers on their abusive
enforcement of New York State’s gravity knife ban against owners of
common pocket knives, the focus changes somewhat as it moves to the
Supreme Court. Keep in mind that the Supreme Court does not generally
agree to hear a case just because any particular decision in a case is
unjust, irrational or just plain terrible, all of which describe this
ruling in spades.

Beyond settling major constitutional issues,
the Court will sometimes choose to resolve differences in the
application of Federal law among different Federal circuit courts when
its decisions are not applied the same throughout the U.S. The Second
Circuit panel’s ruling regarding our constitutional vagueness claim in
this case opens up that possibility with starkly split decisions between
it and other circuits, as well as splits between a number of state
courts. The writ explains why this case is important and worthy of the
Court’s limited time.

A Supreme Court decision to hear the case
could affect the implementation and enforcement of a wide spectrum of
laws to persons throughout the U.S. It is no longer just about these
common folding knives. New York City’s enforcement of the state’s
gravity knife law against common folding knives is now the vehicle to
answer the bigger constitutional question at issue. Only if the Supreme
Court accepts the case do we get to argue the merits of our particular
case as it reflects this bigger issue.

It’s always long odds for
any case to be accepted by the Supreme Court. However, not making the
attempt ensures we lose. And, that would allow very bad precedent to be
set in stone.

Taking a case to Supreme Court is an expensive
proposition, more so for a small organization like Knife Rights. We
still need to raise significant funds for this effort if we don’t want
to hand a victory to New York Governor Cuomo, DA Vance andr New York
City Mayor de Blasio

Please consider a year-end TAX-DEDUCTIBLE donation to Knife Rights to support our efforts at the Supreme Court.  Donate at:  www.kniferights.org/donate/foundation

Uncategorized

This Reporter Gets It

October 6, 2018 by

window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);}
gtag(‘js’, new Date());

gtag(‘config’, ‘UA-115029161-1’);

Kimberly Strassel is a journalist and member of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board. Unlike many in her profession, she is a conservative. Moreover, she has been steadfast in her support of Judge Brett Kavanaugh and has been very vocal about it on Twitter.

Yesterday, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (RINO-AK) broke with her Republican colleagues and voted against invoking cloture on the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh. While saying that Kavanaugh was a good man she said he was not the right man for the Supreme Court “at this time”.

Strassel, in a pair of tweets, points out what Murkowski is really standing for.

<

Uncategorized

Cloture Invoked On Kavanaugh Nomination

October 5, 2018 by

window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);}
gtag(‘js’, new Date());

gtag(‘config’, ‘UA-115029161-1’);

The Senate voted 51-49 to invoke cloture on debate regarding the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. This means that a final vote can be taken as early as Saturday afternoon. Cloture was invoked at 10:36am EDT which started the 30 hour clock on debate. If the Democrats relinquish the floor at anytime during that 30 hour period, the final vote can be called.

The only Democrat to vote for cloture was Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) while the only Republican to vote against it was Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). Manchin is up for re-election this year while Murkowski doesn’t have to face Alaska voters until 2022. President Trump won both states in the 2016 election.

If this vote holds without any more Republican defections, then Judge Kavanaugh will become Justice Kavanaugh. The one wrinkle in this right now is Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) who plans to be out of town on Saturday to attend his daughter’s wedding. Too bad she didn’t have a June wedding!

The ayes and nays are below:

Grouped By Vote Position 

YEAs —51
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Capito (R-WV)
Cassidy (R-LA)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Cotton (R-AR)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Daines (R-MT)
Enzi (R-WY)
Ernst (R-IA)
Fischer (R-NE)
Flake (R-AZ)
Gardner (R-CO)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hyde-Smith (R-MS)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kennedy (R-LA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lankford (R-OK)
Lee (R-UT)
Manchin (D-WV)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Paul (R-KY)
Perdue (R-GA)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rounds (R-SD)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sasse (R-NE)
Scott (R-SC)
Shelby (R-AL)
Sullivan (R-AK)
Thune (R-SD)
Tillis (R-NC)
Toomey (R-PA)
Wicker (R-MS)
Young (R-IN)
NAYs —49
Baldwin (D-WI)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Booker (D-NJ)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Cortez Masto (D-NV)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Duckworth (D-IL)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harris (D-CA)
Hassan (D-NH)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Hirono (D-HI)
Jones (D-AL)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Leahy (D-VT)
Markey (D-MA)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Peters (D-MI)
Reed (D-RI)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Smith (D-MN)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-NM)
Van Hollen (D-MD)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
Uncategorized

Ford’s Prepared Testimony Before The Senate Judiciary Committee

September 27, 2018 by 1 Comment

window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);}
gtag(‘js’, new Date());

gtag(‘config’, ‘UA-115029161-1’);

Earlier today I published the prepared testimony of Judge Brett Kavanaugh which contained his unequivocal denial of participating in any and all sexual assaults. Needless to say, I believe him.

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s attorney has now posted her prepared testimony which is scheduled to be delivered before the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow. If this were the court of law instead of the court of public opinion, this case would never have even gotten to trial. As it is, this was meant to be the Democrat’s bombshell revelation that would take down a good man and destroy his chances of serving on the Supreme Court. I imagine it was also intended to force him to step down from his position as a judge on the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. I think it will fail as well it should.

Uncategorized

Judge Kavanaugh’s Prepared Statement For Thursday’s Senate Hearing

September 26, 2018 by 1 Comment

window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);}
gtag(‘js’, new Date());

gtag(‘config’, ‘UA-115029161-1’);

Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s prepared testimony for his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee has been released. In it, he addresses the charges by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford that he sexually attacked her at a party 36 years ago. He categorically denies it.

It is a strong statement but I wish he might have taken the approach of Justice Clarence Thomas and called it for what it is – bullshit. However, Kavanaugh is a more measured, judicious, and temperate person than I am which is why he’s a judge and I’m not.

As posted at The Atlantic:

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Members of the Committee:

Eleven days ago, Dr. Ford publicly accused me of committing a serious wrong more than 36 years ago when we were both in high school. I denied the allegation immediately, unequivocally, and categorically. The next day, I told this Committee that I wanted to testify as soon as possible, under oath, to clear my name.

Over the past few days, other false and uncorroborated accusations have been aired. There has been a frenzy to come up with something—anything, no matter how far-fetched or odious—that will block a vote on my nomination. These are last-minute smears, pure and simple. They debase our public discourse. And the consequences extend beyond any one nomination. Such grotesque and obvious character assassination—if allowed to succeed—will dissuade competent and good people of all political persuasions from serving our country.

As I told this Committee the last time I appeared before you, a federal judge must be independent, not swayed by public or political pressure. That is the kind of judge I am and will always be. I will not be intimidated into withdrawing from this process. This effort to destroy my good name will not drive me out. The vile threats of violence against my family will not drive me out. I am here this morning to answer these allegations and to tell the truth. And the truth is that I have never sexually assaulted anyone—not in high school, not in college, not ever.

Sexual assault is horrific. It is morally wrong. It is illegal. It is contrary to my religious faith. And it contradicts the core promise of this Nation that all people are created equal and entitled to be treated with dignity and respect. Allegations of sexual assault must be taken seriously. Those who make allegations deserve to be heard. The subject of allegations also deserves to be heard. Due process is a foundation of the American rule of law.

Dr. Ford’s allegation dates back more than 36 years, to a party that she says occurred during our time in high school. I spent most of my time in high school focused on academics, sports, church, and service. But I was not perfect in those days, just as I am not perfect today. I drank beer with my friends, usually on weekends. Sometimes I had too many. In retrospect, I said and did things in high school that make me cringe now. But that’s not why we are here today. What I’ve been accused of is far more serious than juvenile misbehavior. I never did anything remotely resembling what Dr. Ford describes.

The allegation of misconduct is completely inconsistent with the rest of my life. The record of my life, from my days in grade school through the present day, shows that I have always promoted the equality and dignity of women.

I categorically and unequivocally deny the allegation against me by Dr. Ford. I never had any sexual or physical encounter of any kind with Dr. Ford. I am not questioning that Dr. Ford may have been sexually assaulted by some person in some place at some time. But I have never done that to her or to anyone. I am innocent of this charge.

Uncategorized

The Committee Vote Is Friday

September 25, 2018 by 3 Comments

window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);}
gtag(‘js’, new Date());

gtag(‘config’, ‘UA-115029161-1’);

September 25, 2018
 
RESCHEDULED NOTICE OF COMMITTEE EXECUTIVE BUSINESS MEETING
 
        The Executive Business Meeting originally scheduled by the Committee on the Judiciary for Monday, September 24, 2018 at 10:00 a.m., in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building has been rescheduled for Friday, September 28 at 9:30 a.m.
 
        By order of the Chairman.

I. Nominees

Brett M. Kavanaugh, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

Jonathan A. Kobes, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit
 
Kenneth D. Bell, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of North Carolina

Stephanie A. Gallagher, to be United States District Judge for the District of Maryland

Mary S. McElroy, to be United States District Judge for the District of Rhode Island

Carl J. Nichols, to be United States District Judge for the District of Columbia
 
John M. O’Connor, to be United States District Judge for the Northern, Eastern and Western Districts of Oklahoma
 
Martha Maria Pacold, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois
 
Mary M. Rowland, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois
 
Steven C. Seeger, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois


II. Bills

S.2785, DETER Act (Durbin, Graham, Blumenthal, Cruz)

S. 3178, Justice for Victims of Lynching Act of 2018 (Harris, Scott, Feinstein, Leahy, Durbin, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Coons, Blumenthal, Hirono, Booker)   
Uncategorized

A New Word For The Political Lexicon – Feinsteined

September 14, 2018 by 4 Comments

Ari Fleischer, former press secretary for Pres. George W. Bush, has come up with a new word for the political lexicon. It is Feinsteined. This is when an anonymous letter from an anonymous source with an unknown allegation is supposedly sent to the FBI in an effort to derail the nomination of a judicial candidate. In this case, the nominee is Judge Brett Kavanaugh and the allegations may or may not be something non-sexual he did at a party with a girl when he and she were 17 years old.

In the interest of full disclosure, I may or may not have gotten drunk at a New Year’s Eve party when I was 17 and may or may not have kissed a girl at the stroke of midnight who was another guy’s girlfriend and may or may not have gotten in trouble with my mom for coming home drunk from a party.