Who pissed in your Cheerios today? Holy hell man get a grip.
Because I pointed out some valid concerns about the wrong type of case coming up in Montana I some how "work for Knudsen or UPOM"? What a self-righteous blowhard comment.
You want to do it up here, I'd be glad to represent you...
Well seeing as I have significant experience in front of numerous courts and judges, I can tell you most state and federal judges in Montana don't care about what the 10th Cir does in any type of case, and will make a decision based on the outcome they want and find case law to justify it. Just...
I think that's correct. And that'll be the problem. The case they'll prosecute is the 4 road hunters pounding Busch Light and breaking down a corner fence and causing an altercation with the landowner/LE.
I think you're underestimating the very significant impact of a case having slightly different facts that allow a court to make a completely opposite decision than the 10th Cir came to. Ideally, there would be a case in MT, or some other state in the 9th, that's virtually the same - federal...
Not necessarily. There was basically zero chance SCOTUS was going to take this appeal in the first place. The only way I see SCOTUS taking up this issue is if another Circuit rules the other way on corner crossing. Until that happens, SCOTUS won't have a reason to rule on this issue. As this...
I have a VX3 on my go to hunting rifle (7Mag), and although I don't hate it, I'm not sure I'd buy it again. I think Vortex makes better glass for a similar price point, and the one high end Vortex scope I have on another hunting rifle is heads and shoulders above the Leupold.
That being...
As someone who dabbles in the law for a day job, I agree this would be the best "low risk, high reward" tactic. I haven't read the whole 10th Cir opinion yet, but I am curious as to how the 9th Cir would approach this. The Tenth is generally more conservative than the Ninth in their rulings...
90% of litigants at the supreme court have their legal fees paid for by special interests groups, especially on high profile cases. Nothing suspicious about this one here. The court likely took this case based on the egregious facts (small business being strong-armed by the feds) as the...
That's not legally/factual accurate to what Chevron deference was. Agencies made decisions on various statutes, and interpreted them, and the courts under Chevron were only allowed to examine whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute. It required courts...