Maryland AWB case Snope v Brown going to SCOTUS. (Formerly Bianchi v Brown & Bianchi v Frosh)

What are the implications of a dissent being written? I am familiar with what it is but not so much with the effect it would have going forward (or not). Thanks
I've never seen a dissent on granting of cert, but I suppose it's possible. The dissents in a denial have no force of law or precedent. They can give future litigants an idea of what the justices are thinking to better "tune" their pitch next time around.
 
Last edited:
And those pissed over Roe - fck em - Bad case law needs to go down no matter how unpopular the opinion is.
Yes. As I point out to many, neither the climate nor the US Constitution changes much in one, two, three or even four lifetimes - nor should either be expected to. The climate goes up and down over centuries and millennia and COTUS changes over decades and centuries. That’s how they’re both supposed to work - changed dampened by time so that no son, father or grandfather, great-grandfather sees rapid change.

Young folks - and i was young once - want things to change, not just in their lifetime, but when they have time and energy to care. “What do we want? Everything! When do we want it? Now!”

Twenty-seven Amendments to the US Constitution since 1788 is breakneck speed of change.
 

View: https://x.com/fourboxesdiner/status/1881713333411422643

Mark W. Smith/#2A Scholar
@fourboxesdiner
2A Breaking. Today’s SCOTUS order list makes no reference to Snope or Ocean State Tactical arms ban cases. Thus, if we do not receive a cert grant in next 7 days, neither case will be heard this term. The cases will be conferenced again on this Friday. After Friday, the next conference is February 21– too late for this term.
 
No effing clue what Roberts is doing now.

We are in pure political decision making now.
We absolutely have four justices to grant Cert. So why not grant Cert - is roberts letting them know he will throw the case for political reasons?
 
No effing clue what Roberts is doing now.

We are in pure political decision making now.
We absolutely have four justices to grant Cert. So why not grant Cert - is roberts letting them know he will throw the case for political reasons?
My guess - they conferenced it during Biden, and they will conference it during Trump - before granting cert. Roberts wouldn't want it to look like Trump is his Daddy if he accepts the case the day after the inauguration.
 
No effing clue what Roberts is doing now.

We are in pure political decision making now.
We absolutely have four justices to grant Cert. So why not grant Cert - is roberts letting them know he will throw the case for political reasons?
The other option is that there is some potential procedural shortcoming in one case, or they are looking to combine the cases (both are possible)
 
No effing clue what Roberts is doing now.

We are in pure political decision making now.
We absolutely have four justices to grant Cert. So why not grant Cert - is roberts letting them know he will throw the case for political reasons?
Pushing the case till next term is my guess. Unless it was denied and the dissent is taking time to write.
 
The other option is that there is some potential procedural shortcoming in one case, or they are looking to combine the cases (both are possible)
Combining Ocean State and Snope is something they should obviously do since banning standard capacity magazines is banning an entire class of commonly held arms based on a feature not related dangerousness.

Not certain which other cases are in a position to combine right now
 
I wonder if the death sentence case per curiam in the order list delayed in depth discussion on complex cases like Snope and Ocean State (I believe that Ocean State is likely to be held if Snope is granted cert)
 
It wont happen here.
Its a singular summary opinion of the entire court that requires the entire court to share the same opinion.

Not happening here.
Yeah I got that from my googling, I was scratching my head trying to figure out why that Kostas dude seems to think it might happen since we know there are at least 2 or 3 justices that are on board with bans
 
Back
Top Bottom