SCOTUS Cert filed: Schrader, et al v. Holder, et al

[speedrrracer]

Could it be that NONE of these cases would have gone our way, and the Heller majority is merely exercising damage control via denials?

I had hopes along those lines, but they seem pretty ridiculous.
Correct me if I'm wrong:

Assuming the Heller 5 no longer exist (because otherwise they'd just take the case and win it, right?) the bedtime story is that there's a Heller 4 who are preventing "permanent" damage to the 2A.

How are they preventing SCOTUS, with (now) a majority that will vote against the 2A? The thought is that these Heller 4 are not granting cert to cases? That doesn't make sense, since only 4 votes are required to grant cert, so the 4 anti-2A Justices from Heller, McDonald can simply grant cert without any Heller 4 involvement, and then use the (now-swinging-anti) swing vote to claim a majority and destroy the 2A.

 

[JimDandy]

From what I've heard in (I think the article ramping up the DOMA challenge) it's something of a naughty no-no to vote to grant cert on a case you already decided to uphold.

In other words, I'm under the impression it's not "illegal" but it's not very kosher to vote to grant cert to something, if you have no intention of changing the decision, but you just want to rubber stamp the lower court's decision.

ETA: I suspect that the swing vote in this case has a very narrow path they swing on. A right to bear arms, but not out in public. And only for people more pure than driven snow. We can be thankful they're holding the line, but we shouldn't expect a whole lot more. At this point, I suspect the only cases we have a reliable shot at winning would be procedural over activistic. I think we have more of a chance (re-)challenging the lack of ability to redress grievances in the 2A/closed office scenario than trying to get the judges to say someone who is prohibited shouldn't be prohibited. And that won't be a cakewalk.

Part of me wishes the judges were given LESS information- or were better at separating their politics from the law.

 

[speedrrracer]

From what I've heard in (I think the article ramping up the DOMA challenge) it's something of a naughty no-no to vote to grant cert on a case you already decided to uphold.

In your view, how does that mesh with Scalia's interview in which he says he "already know the law", i.e., already knows the correct way (in his view, obviously) to vote on a case?

If he already knows how he'll vote on all of these cases, how can he, in good conscience, grant cert to any? OTOH, why would it be a naughty no-no to grant cert when you already know your vote but there's a circuit split and our rights need clarification? The nation needs a unifying decision for consistent application of law, doesn't it?

ETA: I suspect that the swing vote in this case has a very narrow path they swing on. A right to bear arms, but not out in public. And only for people more pure than driven snow.

Let's assume you're correct. Is there a likely explanation for why wasn't this mentioned in Heller? Why then the language in Heller implying a right to bear in public, when they could have clearly stomped it out, right then?

 

[JimDandy]

In the case of a circuit split, they would vote for cert on the circuit case they plan/suspect to overturn, not uphold.

As for why this wasn't mentioned in Heller- the fact that you read Carry into Heller doesn't make it there. There was quite a bit of fence sitting language in Heller people attribute to "consensus building" or whatever you want to ascribe it to. I think the Justices made it pretty clear they were willing to draw a line in the sand, but that line is far behind where many people would have liked.

To be fair both sides are trying to twist that fence sitting language to their benefit. Dangerous and Unusual for assault weapons bans for example. That was nothing more than SOP to NFA, GCA and FOPA. Sensitive places-schools, jails, etc.