Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

a 9-0 vote by the supreme on this matter is a huge thing.... much more than simply a majority vote. it sends a loud and clear message about their stance on the matter. judges and prosecutors will take this, and all the details into consideration moving forward..... i would imagine the judiciary does not like to pass judgement that will beoverturned by thesupreme court as a matter of professional pride in many cases, and prosecutors dontmlike taking on losingcases.

take the win for what its worth, it is huge. ( i had to double check i wasnt linking to the onion when i woke up and saw theheadline.... good job neighbours ! beproud that your supreme mcourt just did what it is supposed to do, andthey did it loud and clear.



a 9-0 vote by the supreme on this matter is a huge thing.... much more than simply a majority vote. it sends a loud and clear message about their stance on the matter.

Tell that to lower/circuit courts who have an annoying habit of giving SCOTUS rulings a big fat middle finger.


I can think of one recent example: District of Columbia v. Heller & McDonald v. Chicago. Lower courts have been generally unwilling to embrace 2nd amendment rights in light of those two decisions.


Thanks.... some very interesting reading (sorry if this post is breaking hn ettiquette)


Lower courts have been generally unwilling to embrace 2nd amendment rights in light of those two decisions.

[citation needed] And, yes, I am a lawyer, and I am interested in what actual cases you had in mind as you made the statement in your comment.


He gave you one in his post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

which points to related cases. Hope this helps!


He was asking for examples where lower courts ignored McDonald v. Chicago.


In Ezell v. Chicago, decided July 6, 2011, the Seventh Circuit reversed a district court decision that the post-McDonald measures adopted by the City of Chicago were constitutional.

It's in the wiki entry. Under related cases. As I previously stated.


That's a pretty broad statement. Got any examples?



attorneys on both sides, plus juries hearing this will do wonders..... judges dont rule alone necessarily (you have the right to trial by your peers, corect?)

Appeals courts will follow the supreme court if a similar cae hits the judges desk - they are not goung to throw the same case at the supreme cort, bad mojo, it would just be rejected saying "we Alredy ruled on that".

also.. while i am pretty sure the supremes are in office for life ( or until they step down voluntarily orprobably a few other things like commit a felony or become incapacitated, etc) - are other judges as secure? The supremes take their duties very seriously it seems to me. they dont rule lightly, and they are not stupid.


while i am pretty sure the supremes are in office for life . . . are other judges as secure?

All judges in federal courts in the United States may stay in office essentially for life. The language in the Constitution is "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,"

http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Constitution.html

(Article III, Section 1)

and "during good behavior" means that unless the judges are formally impeached and convicted of malfeasance (which is very rare) they can stay in office until they decide to resign. This independence of the federal judiciary is considered very important by United States lawyers (whether they are "conservative" or "liberal") for maintaining the civil liberties of Americans. Today's decision is a good example of a decision that was made unanimously contrary to the position taken during litigation of the case by the current presidential administration.


"you have the right to trial by your peers, corect?"

I believe the answer to that is "not exactly, it's complicated."




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: