The Supreme Court will hear arguments in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen tomorrow morning beginning at 10:00 a.m. eastern. TTAG will have full coverage both during and following the session.
We’ll have a link letting you listen to the arguments yourself. At the same time, we’ll be live blogging the arguments featuring commentary by the Mountain States Legal Foundation’s Center to Keep and Bear Arms’ Cody Wisniewski and TTAG contributor LKB, a member of the Supreme Court bar. You’ll be able to enter your questions in the comments.
Following the conclusion of the arguments, TTAG will hold an after action analysis discussion featuring an all-star group of legal experts including or own LKB along with . . .
Joseph Greenlee, Firearms Policy Coalition senior attorney and Director of Constitutional Studies.
Dave Kopel, Research Director of the Independence Institute, Associate Policy Analyst at the Cato Institute, and adjunct Professor of Advanced Constitutional Law at the University of Denver’s Sturm College of Law. Follow him at davekopel.org.
Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law at UCLA and proprietor of the popular Volohk Conspiracy blog at Reason.com.
Cody Wisniewski, Director of the Mountain States Legal Foundation’s Center to Keep and Bear Arms.
The full post-argument analysis will be posted here at about noon tomorrow. You won’t want to miss it.
Do we have any example of a time when an SC justice ever changed their position after oral arguments?
There are no tentative decisions, so since we do not know what they were thinking before oral argument, who’s to know? I would suspect, however, that it is rare. They have done their review of the record and the briefs before argument, but technically there is no vote in advance of the hearing as to the outcome.
“Do we have any example of a time when an SC justice ever changed their position after oral arguments?”
I’d be very interested in hearing from LKB and Eugene Volokh on how the decision-making process works behind-the-scenes.
We got a small window into that in a Newsweek (?) article awhile back on how Roberts folded like a cheap suit for the ACA…
“We got a small window into that in a Newsweek article awhile back on how Roberts folded like a cheap suit for the ACA…”
That crossed my mind too. But, did Roberts change his mind because of oral arguments, or pressure from other justices (which wouldn’t be due to oral arguments)?
Brown v. Board was only “unanimous” because the leader of the majority told the hold out that the issue was so volatile that only a unanimous verdict would prevent total social upheaval. An extra-legal, social decision. When the SC is concerned about social outcomes, then they are a legislative, not judicial, arm of government.
Fishy the timing to coincide with Rittenhouse trial.
Getting 2018 vibes where Silvester, et al. v. Becerra denial coincided with Parkland.
Or El Paso 2019 when SCOTUS got squishy on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York or how Vegas instantly banished all the talk of the HPA and carry reciprocity which allegedly had momentum at the time.
All this shit is show and nothing is real.
Check out the Zero Hedge, Mr. Shire.
It looks like the FBI was sitting on some *fascinating* video of what happened that night… 🙂
Did you notice that some of that video which the FBI allegedly released included what almost had to be high-altitude drone video footage from above Kenosha, Wisconsin?
Just a couple weeks ago I was in a remote forest location with cousins having some fun with firearms and (shall we say “exciting”) stuff that makes a very loud noise, when I heard airplanes approaching and/or flying overhead. I jokingly said to the cousins, “Hey look! They sent a drone to monitor us!” The saddest part of that statement: I may have actually been correct.
I will be interested to hear what all of those Second Amendment wizards read in the tea leaves on this case.
Well, the last time around, when LKB was inside the courtroom, he determined it was unlikely the Court would moot the case, based on what Roberts was saying.
And they did just that. Tea-leaf reading the oral arguments is a fool’s errand, I fear… 🙁
EDIT – The Leftist Scum know what’s at stake here, and I fully expect them to act like it… 🙁
Greenlee, Kopel and Volokh oppose Open Carry. I emailed Cody Wisniewski, and asked him to state his position on Open Carry, so far, he hasn’t responded. But even if he purports to be a defender of Open Carry, and notwithstanding his organization is located right next to Denver, a city that bans Open Carry, and he has not challenged that ban, three (or four) of four opponents of Open Carry on the panel is revealing. But not in a good way.
Hello Charles. Good to have you here again; too long between appearances.
Any news on your law suits?
My lawsuit is on hold pending the SCOTUS decision on whether or not to grant the Young v. Hawaii cert petition.
My 11th year of litigation against California’s Open Cary bans begins on the 30th of this month.
“My 11th year of litigation against California’s Open Cary bans begins on the 30th of this month.”
Something’s rotten in the state of Denmark.
Sam I Am,
“Something’s rotten in the state of Denmark.”
And it isn’t fish.
Prepare to be disappointed during oral arguments. We know the following:
Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor will embrace Breyer’s interest balancing framework in his Heller dissent- the same framework that was widely adopted by the lower courts after Heller and McDonald. They will join any opinion or dissent that denies concealed carry, but Breyer will definitely take the time to relitigate his Heller dissent.
Roberts will likely join the court’s liberals. Why? His reasons are his own, but some speculate he’s trying to counterbalance the rightward drift of the Court in order to prevent Democrats from packing the judiciary.
All it takes is one of the five remaining Justices to join Roberts and the liberals and the 2nd Amendment is relegated to the dustbin.
ACB and Kavanaugh are the Justices to watch- if it sounds like they’re endorsing the lower courts’ reasoning, then we’re toast. We know that they’re susceptible to the same sort of threats that Roberts caved on due to their turnabout on the Texas abortion lawsuits on Monday. These two Trump-appointed conservative members of the Federalist Society signaled support to blowing up one or more major precedents in order to save abortion in Texas.
Let that sink in for a moment.
If they’re willing to make shit up to save abortion two months after denying stays and injunction that followed existing precedent, then they’re capable of doing the same for gun rights.
Let me just say I’m glad to have legal commentary on the case from such luminaries as Mr. Volokh and Mr. Kopel. The usual way in the mainstream media is either to cite a law prof whose writings have never been influential in that area of law, but match their editorial slant, or else trot out some completely unknown random lawyer, whether they practice in that area or not, and whose opinion happens to match their desired spin.