NRA Petitions Supreme Court to Hear Peruta v. San Diego

[jdege]

NRA & CRPA Petition U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Peruta v. County of San Diego
http://www.ammoland.com/2017/01/nra-crpa-petition-u-s-supreme-court-hear-peruta-v-county-san-diego/#axzz4VcRAWw9d

California – -(Ammoland.com)- On Thursday, January 12, NRA and CRPA attorneys submitted a petition to the United States Supreme Court to review the NRA and CRPA supported case of Peruta v. San Diego.

Nothing like leaving it to the last minute...

This is why I held my nose and voted for Trump. A decision that discretionary permitting is unconstitutional would be huge, and given the names put forward as his top picks for SCOTUS, it's a solid possibility.

http://fortune.com/2017/01/12/trump-supreme-court-candidates/
https://www.thetrace.org/2016/11/donald-trump-supreme-court-picks/

[BigDog58]

[ex-LT]

Nothing like leaving it to the last minute...

You DO realize that the reason they waited until the last minute to file the petition was because of the uncertainty (prior to the election) that there would be a favorable majority on the court, right? The reason for waiting until the last minute was to provide the best possible odds that Trump's nominee will be confirmed and seated prior to hearing the case.

[Chunkychuck]

Nothing like leaving it to the last minute...

You DO realize that the reason they waited until the last minute to file the petition was because of the uncertainty (prior to the election) that there would be a favorable majority on the court, right? The reason for waiting until the last minute was to provide the best possible odds that Trump's nominee will be confirmed and seated prior to hearing the case.

That is correct. But I'm not holding my breath on Trump's nominee getting in any time soon.

[jdege]

Nothing like leaving it to the last minute...

You DO realize that the reason they waited until the last minute to file the petition was because of the uncertainty (prior to the election) that there would be a favorable majority on the court, right? The reason for waiting until the last minute was to provide the best possible odds that Trump's nominee will be confirmed and seated prior to hearing the case.

I understand completely why they waited until after Congress ratified the electoral vote, but that was January sixth. They could have filed any time in the last week. Instead, they waited until they only had a few hours.

[yukonjasper]

If the pain of the appointees to secretary position is any indication, the Supreme Court will be excruciating. Beyond ridiculous.

[steve4102]

Nothing like leaving it to the last minute...

You DO realize that the reason they waited until the last minute to file the petition was because of the uncertainty (prior to the election) that there would be a favorable majority on the court, right? The reason for waiting until the last minute was to provide the best possible odds that Trump's nominee will be confirmed and seated prior to hearing the case.

That is correct. But I'm not holding my breath on Trump's nominee getting in any time soon.

This is a very,very bad idea.

Chuck Schumer and the Democrats have stated that they will not allow a Trump SC Justice nominee to proceed.
The Nuclear Option does not apply to SC Justice appointments.
That means that Trump's SC nominee will need the full 60 votes to stop a Democrat or McCain filibuster and bring the vote to the Senate floor.
That ain't gunna happen by the time the SC decides on hearing this case of not.

As it stands right now we have a very shaky 4-4 spit.

1) If the court does not here the case, then the 9th Circuit ruling stands and gun owners in the 9th circuit lose.

2) If the court does hear the case and it is ends up a split 4-4 decision, then the 9th ruling stands and gun owners in the 9th circuit lose.

3) If the court hears the case and it ends up a 3-5 or worse, then gun owners all across America lose as it will be the law of the land.

I see no way of winning this case with a 4-4 split.

Very bad timing, very bad.

[Rip Van Winkle]

The Nuclear Option does not apply to SC Justice appointments.

Says who?

[steve4102]

The Nuclear Option does not apply to SC Justice appointments.

Says who?

Before November 2013, Senate rules required a three-fifths vote of the "duly chosen and sworn" members of the Senate – (usually 60 votes) to end debate on a bill, nomination or other proposal; they also require a two-thirds vote ("present and voting" – 67 or fewer votes) for to end debate on a change to the Senate rules. Those rules effectively allowed a minority of the Senate to block a bill or nomination through the technique of the filibuster. This had resulted in a de facto requirement that a nomination have the support of 60 Senators to pass, rather than a majority of 51. A three-fifths vote is still required to end debates on legislation and Supreme Court nominations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

Republicans are eight votes shy of a 60-vote threshold needed to break any filibuster on a Supreme Court nominee.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/16/politics/ ... rt-senate/

Under current Senate rules, 60 Senators most vote in favor of ending debate before a final vote can be held to approve Supreme Court nominees.

http://lawnewz.com/video/sen-schumers-t ... ar-option/

[xd ED]

The Nuclear Option does not apply to SC Justice appointments.

Says who?

Before November 2013, Senate rules required a three-fifths vote of the "duly chosen and sworn" members of the Senate – (usually 60 votes) to end debate on a bill, nomination or other proposal; they also require a two-thirds vote ("present and voting" – 67 or fewer votes) for to end debate on a change to the Senate rules. Those rules effectively allowed a minority of the Senate to block a bill or nomination through the technique of the filibuster. This had resulted in a de facto requirement that a nomination have the support of 60 Senators to pass, rather than a majority of 51. A three-fifths vote is still required to end debates on legislation and Supreme Court nominations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

Republicans are eight votes shy of a 60-vote threshold needed to break any filibuster on a Supreme Court nominee.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/16/politics/ ... rt-senate/

Under current Senate rules, 60 Senators most vote in favor of ending debate before a final vote can be held to approve Supreme Court nominees.

http://lawnewz.com/video/sen-schumers-t ... ar-option/

From the same cnn linked article:

Democrats have not firmly said if they will filibuster a nominee -- and Republicans have not flatly said they would break that filibuster through a rules change known as the "nuclear option" -- but those cards are effectively on the table, weeks before Trump submits a nominee.

[steve4102]

Minority Leader Chuck Schumer says otherwise.

http://ijr.com/wildfire/2017/01/769846- ... ointments/

http://nypost.com/2017/01/04/schumer-pr ... ourt-pick/

The top Democrat in the Senate, Chuck Schumer of New York, is promising to block one of President-elect Donald Trump’s first big initiatives — naming a ninth member to the Supreme Court.

[2in2out]

Before a big fight, both opponents are supposed to get in front of everyone who will listen and tell them how they are going to kick the other person all the way to Timbuktu. When the big fight actually happens, all the talk in the world won't change what happens. The only thing it does is make people interested enough to watch.

I'm not saying whether the complete moron Schumer is predicting the future or is delusional. But, it's all just talk.

[xd ED]

schumer can ramble all he wants. Nothing in either article even mentions the nuclear option.

[Rip Van Winkle]

Sorry, the democrats have already invoked the "nuclear option" regarding federal judges. It would only take a small rule change by the republican leadership to change it to include Supreme Court justices.

[steve4102]

schumer can ramble all he wants. Nothing in either article even mentions the nuclear option.

That's because the Nuclear Option (majority vote to stop a filibuster) does not apply to Supreme Court Confirmation hearings.

Trump's nominee will need 60 votes to stop a democrat Filibuster, that ain't gunna happen.