We wait, and see… 🙁

After a case is distributed for / discussed at a conference, over 90% of the time it is cert denied, with the results announced in the list of orders that come out (usually the following Monday). If the court grants cert at the conference, that’s also on the order list.

But if at least one justice is interested in a case, but hasn’t yet rounded up three more justices to join in a cert grant (more realistically, chatting with colleagues to get a feel for whether his side could “get to five” in high profile cases if cert is granted), then they usually kick the can down the road to the next conference. This is what is known as “Re-Listing.” Some cases are re-listed several times before ultimately being cert granted or denied.

A failure of a case to be on the order list after a conference can also mean that cert has been denied, but a justice is requesting time to draft a dissent from the denial of cert.

Why Snopes is being dragged out is unclear. It could be that they just wanted to push it into the Fall term (although why they would want to is even more opaque). Again, my fear is that ACB has joined the Dread Coward Roberts in Squishieville.

“Alas, given that Snopes — which should be a VERY easy case, given the Fourth Circuit’s blatant disregard of Bruen — was relisted three times (and apparently has been relisted again to the next conference in March, meaning if cert is granted the case won’t be argued until next term),…”

I get the frustration, but re-listed doesn’t mean cert. denied, doesn’t it? We’ll have to see. And we could get a very pleasant surprise, or rude shock when the ‘frames and receivers’ case drops in about 6 months.

And, we really dodged the metaphorical bullet with Trump being elected again while controlling the Senate, that takes some of the pressure off Thomas if he’s considering retiring. Hopefully, seeing what happened to RGB’s seat motivates him to act in the next 2 years, but we’ll have to see on that.

Something-something interesting times, and ancient curses…

“Sounds like many of these judges are not serving in manner that would be considered Good Behavior, and should be removed from the bench.”

Careful, that knife cuts both ways, depending on who controls the ‘Levers of Power’…

I get the frustration, but re-listed doesn’t mean cert. denied, doesn’t it? We’ll have to see. And we could get a very pleasant surprise, or rude shock when the ‘frames and receivers’ case drops in about 6 months.

And, we really dodged the metaphorical bullet with Trump being elected again while controlling the Senate, that takes some of the pressure off Thomas if he’s considering retiring. Hopefully, seeing what happened to RGB’s seat motivates him to act in the next 2 years, but we’ll have to see on that.

Something-something interesting times, and ancient curses…

I can understand that the Court will only want to grant cert on final judgment cases (which is why it recently denied cert on a number of cases involving appeals from grants / denials / vacations of preliminary injunctions in MSR ban cases). But when the Ninth Circuit is openly and blatantly laying procedural games to avoid the issues (e.g., the delays on ruling on appeals from Benitez’s various final judgments — orders that will be essentially impossible for the Ninth Circuit to reverse, because they are based on findings of fact), and has done so for decades (look at how long they took to rule in Wilson v. Hawaii), at some point SCOTUS is going to have to step in via the Shadow Docket and essentially tell the Ninth Circuit that either they rule within X days or their stays of the various judgments pending appeal will be vacated.

Alas, given that Snopes — which should be a VERY easy case, given the Fourth Circuit’s blatant disregard of Bruen — was relisted three times (and apparently has been relisted again to the next conference in March, meaning if cert is granted the case won’t be argued until next term), I’m afraid that may indicate that ACB has gone wobbly/native on 2A cases. I.e., she and the Dread Coward Roberts may be in favor of joining the liberal block to pare back Bruen, or are at least hinting that they may . . . which would mean we may be back to the “Mexican Standoff” of the pre-Bruen days when Kennedy was still on the Court, where neither side court be sure of “getting to five,” and so lower courts knew they could ignore Heller / McDonald (and now Bruen) with complete impunity in some circuits.

As a result, we’ll probably keep seeing these kinds of BS tactics from the Ninth, Fourth, and Seventh Circuits.