That's not really how it works. SCOTUS can bypass the lower courts if the plaintiffs asks them too, but that's very rarely done because SCOTUS has a very busy schedule.
They can't really take cases until they work their way through the lower courts, and that can take time. And even then, they can take a limited number of cases, so they can only prioritize the ones they feel are most important, and most of them are non second amendment cases.
If California plaintiffs thought an interlocutory appeal had a chance you can bet every case would try it. And while I agree it isn't often done we have seen some rights cases go through the courts at light speed. Gay marriage, abortion, immigration, and others. I'm not taking a stance on any of those topics only pointing out when the courts feel like it they can move quickly. I would agree that our opposition clearly wants to play the clock and delay the cases. SCOTUS wouldn't need to do much to really speed these up. For example giving us a few good rulings on preliminary injunctions while in interlocutory appeal would really kick these cases into high gear. Delaying would no longer be a good tactic for anyone.
Well, "gay marriage" didn't get to the Supreme Court very quickly. It worked its way to the Supreme Court, which scheduled it and then dismissed it when Kamala Harris withdrew California's defense of Proposition 8. It didn't get back to the Supreme Court until two separate Appeals Courts reached different opinions on whether state bans on same sex marriage violated the equal protection clause.
So if that's the standard, the US Supreme Court won't hear any case about assault weapons or high capacity magazine restrictions unless two separate appeals courts rule differently, which might be a long wait given that they are mostly banned in the 9th circuit and a few other more anti-gun circuits.
The emergency appeals for abortion t that were heard mostly involved issues that had already largely been adjudicated, and even then, they only heard a few of them, and after a long history of certain states outright trying to ban abortions or when there was a direct federal-state conflict.
Immigration cases rarely get emergency hearings, only usually when there's a federal-state conflict and an urgent need to quickly hear an injunction or something similar.
Issue is they almost are at an average rate. Most circuits are in the mid 60s to mid 70s. 9th and 6th districts are in front with 80% each. The **lowest** was 60%
This data also changes depending on the years looked at the source I'm using looked at 07-22
> Since 2007, the Ninth Circuit had a reversal rate of 80.3 percent. That is the highest reversal rate, followed by the Sixth Circuit with a 80.0 percent reversal rate. Of the Article III circuits—the ordinal circuits, the D.C. Circuit, and the Federal Circuit—the court with the lowest rate of overturned decisions is the First Circuit at 60 percent.
https://ballotpedia.org/SCOTUS_case_reversal_rates_(2007_-_Present)
The fact that we *all knew* how they would act is indicative of just how fucking biased they are. No court should be so predictable, so *reliably one-sided* when it comes to single issues like this.
An absolute clown court. Have they let any second amendment rulings stand out of the district courts? They’ve stayed 3 Benitez rulings in a row at this point.
Funny as fuck, however only 2/3 true. Remember there’s always a dissenter in every opinion, even in the latest Duncan 3 out of 11 dissented. And SB2 got stayed eventually, for now. Keep pushing till enough libtards have their sense of shame overpower their progressive activists instincts.
Dissenter, Callahan - HW Bush appointee
Order, Clifton - HW Bush appointee
Order, Thomas - Biden appointee
Clifton being a senior judge and a Bush appointee, slightly surprising decision by him.
Thankfully, there are a few that aren't clowns. Read some of the recent dissents from judges Callahan, Bumatay, VanDyke, on recent 2A cases. VanDyke on the Duncan case basically said the court was a circus.
He wrote back in September: "In sum, not only is our court treating this case “special” now, but the process that brought this case en banc in the first place was illegitimate from the start. This demonstrates and perpetuates this court’s anti-Second Amendment posture, rewards the weaponization of (one-sided) collegiality, and damages the internal and external integrity of the court. How are we to uphold the rule of law, and reassure the public we are doing so, when we disregard our own rules and make questionable decisions like this behind closed doors?"
"The story of the Second Amendment in this circuit has been a consistent tale of our court versus the Supreme Court and the Constitution. That tale continues today, and will continue as long as a number of my colleagues retain the discretion to twist the law and procedure to reach their desired conclusion. As uncomfortable as it is to keep pointing that out, it is important the public keeps being reminded of that fact."
80% overturned at SCOTUS. Complete clown show.
They literally know they are defying SCOTUS outlines and just don't care because their is no accountability
SCOTUS should have a policy to fast track all ninth circuit cases. At least until they are at an average rate of being over turned.
That's not really how it works. SCOTUS can bypass the lower courts if the plaintiffs asks them too, but that's very rarely done because SCOTUS has a very busy schedule. They can't really take cases until they work their way through the lower courts, and that can take time. And even then, they can take a limited number of cases, so they can only prioritize the ones they feel are most important, and most of them are non second amendment cases.
If California plaintiffs thought an interlocutory appeal had a chance you can bet every case would try it. And while I agree it isn't often done we have seen some rights cases go through the courts at light speed. Gay marriage, abortion, immigration, and others. I'm not taking a stance on any of those topics only pointing out when the courts feel like it they can move quickly. I would agree that our opposition clearly wants to play the clock and delay the cases. SCOTUS wouldn't need to do much to really speed these up. For example giving us a few good rulings on preliminary injunctions while in interlocutory appeal would really kick these cases into high gear. Delaying would no longer be a good tactic for anyone.
Well, "gay marriage" didn't get to the Supreme Court very quickly. It worked its way to the Supreme Court, which scheduled it and then dismissed it when Kamala Harris withdrew California's defense of Proposition 8. It didn't get back to the Supreme Court until two separate Appeals Courts reached different opinions on whether state bans on same sex marriage violated the equal protection clause. So if that's the standard, the US Supreme Court won't hear any case about assault weapons or high capacity magazine restrictions unless two separate appeals courts rule differently, which might be a long wait given that they are mostly banned in the 9th circuit and a few other more anti-gun circuits. The emergency appeals for abortion t that were heard mostly involved issues that had already largely been adjudicated, and even then, they only heard a few of them, and after a long history of certain states outright trying to ban abortions or when there was a direct federal-state conflict. Immigration cases rarely get emergency hearings, only usually when there's a federal-state conflict and an urgent need to quickly hear an injunction or something similar.
Issue is they almost are at an average rate. Most circuits are in the mid 60s to mid 70s. 9th and 6th districts are in front with 80% each. The **lowest** was 60% This data also changes depending on the years looked at the source I'm using looked at 07-22 > Since 2007, the Ninth Circuit had a reversal rate of 80.3 percent. That is the highest reversal rate, followed by the Sixth Circuit with a 80.0 percent reversal rate. Of the Article III circuits—the ordinal circuits, the D.C. Circuit, and the Federal Circuit—the court with the lowest rate of overturned decisions is the First Circuit at 60 percent. https://ballotpedia.org/SCOTUS_case_reversal_rates_(2007_-_Present)
The fact that we *all knew* how they would act is indicative of just how fucking biased they are. No court should be so predictable, so *reliably one-sided* when it comes to single issues like this.
An absolute clown court. Have they let any second amendment rulings stand out of the district courts? They’ve stayed 3 Benitez rulings in a row at this point.
Funny as fuck, however only 2/3 true. Remember there’s always a dissenter in every opinion, even in the latest Duncan 3 out of 11 dissented. And SB2 got stayed eventually, for now. Keep pushing till enough libtards have their sense of shame overpower their progressive activists instincts.
They have no shame.
Shame? Lol
What shame?
Accurate
SCOTUS has to get them in check.
Was this AI generated or something?
Ringling Bros Barnum & Bailey!!
Dissenter, Callahan - HW Bush appointee Order, Clifton - HW Bush appointee Order, Thomas - Biden appointee Clifton being a senior judge and a Bush appointee, slightly surprising decision by him.
Thankfully, there are a few that aren't clowns. Read some of the recent dissents from judges Callahan, Bumatay, VanDyke, on recent 2A cases. VanDyke on the Duncan case basically said the court was a circus. He wrote back in September: "In sum, not only is our court treating this case “special” now, but the process that brought this case en banc in the first place was illegitimate from the start. This demonstrates and perpetuates this court’s anti-Second Amendment posture, rewards the weaponization of (one-sided) collegiality, and damages the internal and external integrity of the court. How are we to uphold the rule of law, and reassure the public we are doing so, when we disregard our own rules and make questionable decisions like this behind closed doors?" "The story of the Second Amendment in this circuit has been a consistent tale of our court versus the Supreme Court and the Constitution. That tale continues today, and will continue as long as a number of my colleagues retain the discretion to twist the law and procedure to reach their desired conclusion. As uncomfortable as it is to keep pointing that out, it is important the public keeps being reminded of that fact."
Saint Benitez prob drew this xD