Seegars v Gonzalez: Petition for rehearing denied...
|
As if Kelo v New London wasn't bad enough for one day, the petition for rehearing in Seegars v Gonzalez has come back denied. That leaves the decision from the three-judge panel
as the current law. Options for the Seegars plaintiffs now
include petitioning the Supreme Court to hear their case, or simply
giving up and allowing the ruling to stand. Since the whole idea behind the Seegars and Parker cases was to get before the Supreme Court, I would guess that the NRA will petition the Supreme Court for certiori. However, there's enough confusion and conflicting motives involved to make that just a guess, not a sure thing -- particularly if they think they have set enough precedent to control the decision in Parker. And given the recent disappointing decisions from the Supreme Court (Kelo v New London, Gonzalez v Raich, US v Stewart), along with the possibility of favorable Bush appointees, it may be smarter to avoid the present court. Initial reports have the voting on the case as 6-3-1 (that is, six against rehearing; 3 for rehearing; 1 abstaining or not voting). I wouldn't be surprised if Janice Rogers Brown is the abstaining vote, since I believe she is now on the circuit but hasn't participated in any part of the case before. The denial doesn't come with an substantive opinion, just the denial; however, reports suggest that there Sentelle wrote a dissenting opinion, Ginsburg wrote a concurring opinion, and Williams wrote a "statement" that could be anything. I'll post those if I can get my hands on them. There's now a deadline for further briefing in Parker v DC (July 22nd), which had been stayed pending results from the Seegars case. There are outstanding motions in that case, and the court's request for further briefing suggests that it intends to move forward with the Parker case. UPDATE: More information coming in. We can't yet be sure of who voted how, exactly, but I've made an educated guess based on the rehearing-en-banc denial (which I can't post; but it doesn't say much anyway). Here's my guess at the vote talley:
I'm basing those votes on the en banc denial ruling, which indicates the decision to deny along with the specific judges voting in favor of rehearing. There's a "statement" by Williams that is not characterized as either dissenting or concurring, which I suspect means that Williams is the abstention. However, that's a guess; we only know for sure the judges who voted yes and Ginsburg (because of her concurring opinion). It's possible that Williams voted "no" and wrote about it, while someone else abstained and didn't feel any need to explain why. Since Williams has already participated in the case, an abstention at this point seems a little odd, but his statement will no doubt illuminate the question. Careful readers will recognize that Janice Rogers Brown did not vote. She's still finishing things up in CA, presumably. UPDATE: Williams is a senior judge in the DC Circuit. According to the handbook, senior judges do not have a vote on en banc petitions, but may request a vote if they sat on the panel for that case. That's probably exactly what happened here. |
Check the groups below and enter your email address to receive updates by email:
The trackback URL for this entry is: http://triggerfinger.org/weblog/servlet/trackback/6556
courtyard by marriott
comprise unreasonable disputes delighting booksellers:cincinnati hotels http://www.1finest-hotel.com/cincinnati-hotels.html
phenterine
phenterine
secured master card
Brandeis!deduced favorably stronghold plural wing summon railway student credit card http://www.unique-credit-card.com/student-credit-card.html
No comments have been posted so far.