[Malum Prohibitum]

http://www.law.harvard.edu/alumni/bulle ... ture_3.php

They repeat the mistaken notion that this is the "first time a gun law has been found unconstitutional based on the Second Amendment," which is surprising if Harvard is suppoed to have the best and the brightest, but otherwise it is a decent read.

But Parker “is more straightforward,†Tushnet says, and the Court will have a tougher time avoiding the issue.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

But Tribe is less confident of that prediction. Should the case reach the Supreme Court, he told The New York Times, “there’s a really quite decent chance that it will be affirmed.â€

 

[Thorsen]

Following the rulings of the US Supreme Court is a bit of a hobby for me as I have an intense interest in the law, and these individuals by their collective pronouncements determine exactly what the law means. That being said, I think that if this writ of certiori is accepted by the justices and ruled on I think the vote would probably go as follows:

John Paul Stevens: Reject the appellate court ruling (definite)
Antonin Scalia: Affirm the appellate ruling (definite)
Anthony Kennedy: Unkown - tending towards Affirm
David Souter: Reject
Clarence Thomas: Affirm (definite)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Reject (definite)
Stephen Breyer: Reject (definite)
John Roberts: Affirm
Samuel Alito: Affirm

The reasons I put defintite by Stevens, Scalia, Thomas, Ginsburg and Breyer is because I think that Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer have established themselves as activist judges. Ginsburg and Breyer are big believers in conforming our laws to international laws and think that we should interpret our constitution in light of how the world looks at those rights. Stevens is simply a purely left wing idealogue and has voted that way since he was in office.

Scalia is a strict constructionist and believes in a literal interpretation of the constititution based off of its literal message, as well as framers' intent, and where Scalia goes, you can bet your bottom dollar that Thomas isn't too far behind.

Souter, while I believe to be counted on to vote to reject the appeals court ruling, could possibly surprise everyone with an individual interpretation of the second amendment versus the liberal camps collectivist ideas. So not a definite, but I would say an affirmation from him would be a bit of a surprise.

Alito and Roberts I think can be counted on to affirm the appeal court's ruling, but I didn't list them as a definite since they are firm believers in stare decisis and may potentially strike down the appeal court's ruling based off of established precedent from the other appeal courts.

Kennedy ...... flip a coin. He is the inheritor of O'Connor's position as the swing vote on this court, and I can't begin to think where he would land on this issue. He is a firm believer in the rights of hunters and sportsmen, but he doesn't particularly care for handguns and could rule with the liberal wing for that reason. If I had to give odds though, I would say 60-40 with 60 being affirm and 40 being reject.

Keep your fingers crossed. If writ is granted, this case could be a huge decision, that is if the court doesn't wimp out and narrowly construe their decision.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

I would bet a $1 that you are wrong on Ginsburg. In this limited case, I think she would affirm. Not a definite, but I still think so.

 

[Thorsen]

The only reason I say definite on Ginsburg is her unequivocal beliefs that the US should tailor its laws to conform to international law. Since the majority of international law, specifically that in most European countries, is on the whole designed to keep firearms out of the hands of the citizens, she would vote to limit the second amendment.

I could be wrong on her, and I hope that I am, but I still have her in my definite column. I think the more "liberal" of the justices that stands a chance at going for affirmation is Souter.

Let's hope it makes it to the Supremes and we get to see which one of us is right.

For my money, I hope I am right on all of them except Ginsburg and you are right on that one

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Alito and Roberts I think can be counted on to affirm the appeal court's ruling, but I didn't list them as a definite since they are firm believers in stare decisis and may potentially strike down the appeal court's ruling based off of established precedent from the other appeal courts.

I do not think stare decisis applies to the Supreme Court when viewing lower court rulings. Miller will be about all that matters in that regard.

 

[Thorsen]

You are correct that stare decisis really only applies to previous Supreme Court rulings, but the legal weight of so many appellate rulings falling down on the side of collectivism does lend a lot of weight to that arguement. Not stare decisis in the pure sense of the word, so that term might not be the best one to use.

 

[GAGunOwner]

They repeat the mistaken notion that this is the "first time a gun law has been found unconstitutional based on the Second Amendment,"

There is another federal case?

 

[kkennett]

I would bet a $1 that you are wrong on Ginsburg. In this limited case, I think she would affirm. Not a definite, but I still think so.

I have made this same prediction regarding Ginsburg in this forum months ago. I believe she will hold her nose and vote to affirm because as an old ACLU hack, she doesn't want people reading individuals out of the bill of rights. She will be swayed by the liberal logic that selective readings of the 2A can lead to similar techniques on amendments they like, such as the 1A, 4A, 5A, 6A, and 8A. Not that they don't apply selective readings themselves all the time.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

They repeat the mistaken notion that this is the "first time a gun law has been found unconstitutional based on the Second Amendment,"

There is another federal case?

No, not currently, but lots of other cases have found that a law violates the Second Amendment.

Just look at the first case here on this site, on the case law page (under yellow Gun Laws button, above).

 

[wsweeks2]

I have made this same prediction regarding Ginsburg in this forum months ago. I believe she will hold her nose and vote to affirm because as an old ACLU hack, she doesn't want people reading individuals out of the bill of rights. She will be swayed by the liberal logic that selective readings of the 2A can lead to similar techniques on amendments they like, such as the 1A, 4A, 5A, 6A, and 8A. Not that they don't apply selective readings themselves all the time.

Well stated.

 

[Thorsen]

I would bet a $1 that you are wrong on Ginsburg. In this limited case, I think she would affirm. Not a definite, but I still think so.

Where's my dollar?

Seriously though, I came to be persuaded by your arguement on Ginsburg and was seriously off on Souter, but I did get the vote correct. I would have rathered have seen a 6-3 split, like you thought might happen, but a win is a win.