search
top

Supremes Announce Nothing

SCOTUSBlog tells us that The Court has not said whether or not they’ll hear the case. Looks like we’re waiting a while longer folks.

The next date for possible action on it is likely to be November 26, following a pre-Thanksgiving Conference set for November 20.

It’s interesting. I wonder whether they didn’t get to it? Or did were they unable to come to an agreement? I don’t really know how this stuff works. Perhaps someone could enlighten.

UPDATE: I kind of wonder whether they perhaps would prefer to deal with it before the holidays, when people aren’t paying much attention to the news cycle. Pure speculation on my part. What think you all?

UPDATE: SCOTUSBlog has updated:

The Court, of course, does not explain inaction. But among the possible reasons for delaying the case are these: one or more Justices simply asked for more time to consider the two cases; the Court may be rewriting the question or questions it will be willing to review — especially in view of the disagreement between the two sides on what should be at issue; the Court may have voted initially to deny review of one or both cases and one or more Justices are writing a dissent from the denial. The appeal in 07-290 (District of Columbia v. Heller) raises the key issue about the Second Amendment’s meaning and the appeal in 07-335 (Parker v. District of Columbia) poses a question about who may bring lawsuits to challenge laws before they are actively enforced. Together, the cases thus present a somewhat complex mix for the Court, and it perhaps was not much of a surprise that no order issued on Tuesday. At no point is there likely to be an answer to what happened to bring about the delay. Both cases are expected to be re-listed for the Nov. 20 Conference.

Not sure if this indicates anything about what result we might be able to expect.  My guess is no.

7 Responses to “Supremes Announce Nothing”

  1. thirdpower says:

    Could very well be. As has been mentioned everywhere, they’re not exactly ones for controversy. There was actually an article in my local paper about it.

  2. straightarrow says:

    The case was discussed in conference, but no decision was reached.

    This is not good news. Else they would not need time to negotiate on such a compelling case. There can be no more compelling case before them than this one, yet they need more time to decide whether to hear it. That translates to negotiation.

    I suspect the point of the negotiation is how to pretend they are doing their jobs without actually doing their jobs or upholding the constitution throughout the entire country. If they finally decide to hear the case, I further suspect any subsequent ruling will be so dilute as to be useless in any venue, with the possible, but guaranteed, exception of D.C.

    I hope I’m wrong, but the only reason I can find for that hope is that I am incurably optimistic. Nothing in the courts demeanor for the last 30 years or more justifies that hope.

  3. Sebastian says:

    It depends on what they are talking about. It very well could just be the standing issue that’s the bone of contention. The Heller attorneys have asked the court to consider letting the other plaintiffs in Heller back in on the case.

  4. straightarrow says:

    I see you are incurable also.

  5. Sebastian says:

    Well, I’m saying, there’s several issues that The Court is considering that don’t have much to do with the merits of the case itself. Just offering some room for optimism they won’t necessarily chicken out.

  6. Michael says:

    This would not suprise me if the annouce during the holidays. Either to say they will or the most likely that they are not. It is typical for the Supremes to blow off cases that are too controversial.

  7. straightarrow says:

    too controversial=returning power to the citizen from state hands.

top