Will Nino Write the Gun Rights Case?
Will Justice Scalia author the majority opinion in the gun rights case?
That’s the speculation.
A guy can dream. But I think Allah has it right when he says:
What’s strange is that, per O’Shea, there’s likely to be a majority on the threshold question but then all kinds of splits within the court on the subsidiary questions — and Scalia, being more of an absolutist on this issue, is unlikely to represent the majority on all or most of those subsidiary questions. Roberts himself, or Kennedy, would seem to be a better bet. Is that a hint that maybe the Court’s not going to reach those subsidiary questions at all, and will content itself with a simple ruling on the individual rights issue?
That would be consistent with the recent Roberts Court pattern of deciding cases on the narrowest grounds possible.
Can individual Justices write concurrent opinions (whether minority or majority) without permission from the Chief Justice?
That is to say, if Scalia is in the majority but thinks that the other 4 or 5 don’t go far enough, can he say that in a separate official Opinion?
And what effect would that have on future cases in lower courts that would have to rely on this ruling as stare decisis?
Drumwaster (8ad883) — 6/23/2008 @ 9:47 pmIf a justice dissents in any way from the majority view, I really doubt anyone can stop them from writing a dissent. A concurrence is a partial dissent….
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 6/24/2008 @ 1:11 amI think Scalia will write the “majority” opinion, but that “majority” opinion will be only a fraction of the entire opinion that Scalia drafts.
I think he’ll write it in such a way as to draw 6-7 votes establishing an individual right consistent with what is now deemed the accurate historical record of the 2nd Amendment’s origin. You’ll see a few judges concurring in the judgment while joining only that narrow slice of the decision. The may write separately to disagree with any absolutist rhetoric that will likely be the view of only Scalia and Thomas — and maybe Alito as well.
There may also be a “middle of the road” opinion that concurs in the judgment, but gets only 3-4 joiners — something written by Breyer or maybe the Chief — which is joined by Kennedy and maybe Stevens.
There will probably be one dissent, and I expect it to be from Souter, with one or more Justices joining it in part.
wls (0ee728) — 6/24/2008 @ 3:33 amDrumwaster — any justice can write an opinion on any case. The “majority” opinion is assigned by the Chief Justice if he votes with the majority in the decision, or by the senior-most Justice if the Chief is in the minority.
Any justice can vote with the majority on the outcome of the case, but write a concurring opinion to explain that while that justice votes with the majority he/she does so for reasons other than those expressed in the majority opinion.
Any justice can write a dissenting opinion, or join the dissenting opinion of another — or both.
wls (0ee728) — 6/24/2008 @ 3:37 amI lean toward WLS’s view that if Justice Scalia does indeed write the majority opinion, an actual majority will only join certain parts of that decision. However, given how sweeping DC’s ban is, I could see Scalia adopting the minimalist approach instead: “Yes, there really is a Second Amendment lodged in there between Amendments One and Three, and yes, it actually does mean something, therefore, the DC ordinance violates it. The end.”
Xrlq (b71926) — 6/24/2008 @ 5:31 amJust don’t let it be Kennedy. An incoherent Kennedy style opinion on this topic would be extraordinarily disappointing.
Scalia knows how to write a majority opinion that garners wider support if its at all possible in a controversial topic, he’s done it before and still ended up with a reasonably readable opinion. I think RAV v. City of St Paul was his as an example.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/24/2008 @ 7:44 amSorry to disagree, SPQR. Kennedy seemed to me to be the most pro-Second Amendment during oral arguments. Much more than Scalia. Scalia, it seemed to me, emphasized “keep” (“just because we have newspapers it’s ok to ban books?”) but Kennedy emphasized “bear” (his references to the pioneers needing to defend themselves from Indians and outlaws). I’m afraid of hunters and collectors when it comes to Second Amendment rights. Give me the guy who thinks it’s important for the minimum wage gas station attendant to have his $50.00 “Saturday Night Special” on him on his way to and from work.
nk (11c9c1) — 6/24/2008 @ 7:54 amIts not the commitment to the right that I’m decrying, its Kennedy’s incoherent opinion writing.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/24/2008 @ 7:57 amToo bad there isn’t a conjunction there to indicate we should respect the definitions of BOTH words, eh? Something along the lines of “keep AND bear arms”…
Wait, what?
Drumwaster (8ad883) — 6/24/2008 @ 8:08 amAs someone born two years after Miller, and has watched the Justice system ignore, throughout my life,
Another Drew (8018ee) — 6/24/2008 @ 9:03 amthis most basic of rights vital to the preservation of all others;
I will accept, gladly, one small step back towards sanity.
Anything more will be a gift!
I’ve been looking forward to the decision on this case since I heard they were going to grant Cert. I just hope they address some of the specifics of the D.C. law … specifically the requirement that the gun be inoperable while in the home … and that based on the working of the law, one needs permission to move the gun from room to room within their own home.
MOG (f57a20) — 6/24/2008 @ 10:34 amThis one should be an entertaining read.
I wonder how this law affects the Secret Service.
Michael Ejercito (a757fd) — 6/24/2008 @ 10:08 pmMOG, I doubt they’ll address the inoperability requirement for long guns. That was one of the issues in the original Parker case, but the Supremes didn’t grant cert on that issue. Then again, they may rule broadly enough on the handgun issue to make any separate ruling on the inoperability ruling unnecessary. We’ll know soon enough.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 6/25/2008 @ 3:51 am