« Heads up for VA residents | Main | Conflict over "may issue" permits in California »
District Judge rules for Chicago
Story here. The article doesn't make it clear, but given that he'd ruled earlier, I assume this means he dismissed the case, that is, entered an appealable order.
Not a surprise to anyone. Even assuming the judge wasn't part of the local machine, the Circuit Court, which is over his head, ruled the other way in the original Morton Grove case, and he can't overrule them. But you have to raise the issue in front of him, anyway, in order to get the right to appeal.
Comments
Ну точно, как все говорят, интересное рядом! :)
Posted by: DannyLK at December 18, 2008 02:47 PM
..."but he can't overrule them."...
That is one of the major failings of the legal system and one of the greatest assets of science. No prior determination is taken at face value. Everything is questioned and tested over and over and if found wanting the prior determination is negated.
Just because a judge or group of judges determines night to be day, the rest of the judges are bound to follow. Too bad we can't get them to line up on a cliff behind a suicidal judge.
ALL judicial decisions should be questioned and should be overridden when the data prove it to be incorrect.
Dominus providebit!
Posted by: fwb at December 18, 2008 03:37 PM
What was he overruling though?
QUILICI V. VILLAGE OF MORTON GROVE, 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982)
Was an anti-2nd Amendment decision.
Posted by: Marcus Poulin at December 18, 2008 04:29 PM
Marcus:
Judge Shadur didn't over-rule anyone, just as expected.
Now the way is cleared for appeal to the 7th circuit.
FWB ... this is just perfect!
"Just because a judge or group of judges determines night to be day, the rest of the judges are bound to follow. Too bad we can't get them to line up on a cliff behind a suicidal judge."
That was the main jist of the ABA anti-2A amicus brief. Follow precedent, no matter what. Fools.
Posted by: Carl in Chicago at December 18, 2008 07:42 PM
The ABA sucks hot Muslim sphincter, in my view. I think it is nothing more than a liberal echo chamber. There is absolutely no reason for the ABA to involved, in any way whatsoever, in this case. I am not, and never will be, a member.
Posted by: Letalis Maximus, Esq. at December 19, 2008 09:11 AM
"That was the main jist of the ABA anti-2A amicus brief. Follow precedent, no matter what."
Which would indicate a complete lack of understanding of how stare decisis actually works. I have run into too many law-school students (and grads) who think stare decisis is all about, and only about, adhering to precedent. Well yeah, that's the very general gist, to assure consistency in the legal system, thereby assuring stability and predictability. But it doesn't mean, drone-like, slavish, absolute adherence with no regard whatsoever to changed conditions, evolution of policy, new data, whatever.
Posted by: Bill at December 19, 2008 09:19 AM