Well now.  Looks like our analysis was spot on when it comes to Amy Coney Barrett and Monday morning.  We said we thought ACB was probably going to do something Monday and it looks like the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals thought the same thing.

The Seventh issued an order today setting an expedited briefing schedule for the preliminary injunctions culminating in oral arguments on June 29th.  This sure looks like a transparent attempt to undermine deliberations by SCOTUS to remedy Easterbrook’s stay.

Todays order was issued by a three judge panel with rabid anti-gunners Fraudulent Frank Easterbrook and Elizabeth Warren look-alike (in appearance as philosophy) Diane Wood sitting on it along with a Trump appointee.  They opted to leave the stay in place meaning nothing can happen until they make a decision after June 29th.

There’s also language that gives the state two bites and the briefs ahead of the orals on June 29th while our side only gets a single one.  There’s also language that we’re all supposed to work together on a limited number of pages for our brief.  Given how they did on the Amici brief, I suggest all parties defer to Paul Clement and Erin Murphy but we’ll have to wait and see if egos from some of these less skilled and capable firms will allow that.

Here’s something the Illinois Attorney General filed this afternoon that stinks of desperation.  It might as well as have been Re: Pretty please, don’t issue an order enjoining us from enforcing our unconstitutional gun control scheme.

It also contains the 7th Circuit’s official order on pages 2 & 3 and it has Easterbrook’s fingerprints all over it from start to finish.  Take a read.

Between this and HB676, it surely feels like gun owners are getting hosed good and hard by the gun control jihadists running our state.

Here’s the deal:  The 7th can follow Bruen and get their heads out of their asses, or they can double down on Easterbrook stupid.  If they go with Easterbrook’s version of cray-cray, then that all but guarantees the US Supreme Court will take this case to decide once and for all about gun and magazine bans.

It seems like a long time to wait for a no-brainer case.

More here: 

7 thoughts on “LITIGATION UPDATE: Guess who else thought SCOTUS was going to take action Monday…”
  1. Weasel words while peoples’ livelihoods are ruined by this ‘law’, and the specter of creating a class of instant felons for what they chose to purchase legally looms. Delay, inaction, lies and bullshit. Meanwhile, the GA passes this garbage faster than we can knock it down. We have to fight just to get an emergency injunction that lasts less than a week – the state waves a magic want and makes it disappear into a sea of corrupt judges.

  2. The wheels of justice roll very slowly. And in the case of Illinois. It has four flat tires. We knew this was gonna take a while. We live in a time when common sense and jurisprudence is lacking. Instead we are ruled by fools and miscreants.

  3. Also coming to a neighborhood near you:


    It would seem that our rulers pattern their efforts after that bastion of freedom Serbia to keep us safe. It also seems that the left and the MSM lies about ‘mass shootings’ only occurring in the US.

  4. My forlorn hope is the USSC is tired of being ignored and looks past this pile of poo in the state’s panties. Alas, reality; one has hope in one hand and a pile of shiza in the other what do you have? The trampling of rights continues unabated in the state legislature in part so JB can put accomplishments on his scorecard when he runs for President of the Feral Grubberment. In the other part all of the soccer moms and henpecked type B men in the state legislature can beat their chests and say I did something! These are politicians playing their games, this is expected. Unfortunately the real problem will never be solved: uninformed, ignorant, and simply stupid Illinois citizens who know nothing of their legacy as American Citizens. These pitiful emotional morons will vote for the same mopes and continue to “feel” good about their lives dedicated to diversity, equity, and inclusion. A story exists Admiral Yamamoto said the United States could never be invaded as a gun would lurk behind every blade of grass. Whether the quote is true or not it conveyed a meaning and belief about the tenacity and toughness of America. Now we are left with feckless flailing epicene creatures who can’t stay off of tiktok.

    1. I am actively looking at moving my scary guns out of state to a relative I can trust until we can join them in a couple of years. It is time to abandon this communist state once and for all, and to take our taxes with us. The quicker this state fails, the better for America. It will be expensive to pull up roots and move, but we will have our Illinois pensions and have to contribute nothing to the maintenance of this godforsaken dump. Illinois is now Chicago, and we will not live under their rule any longer. This lifelong resident is fed up.

  5. Hey, oh rotund one: Pass this info on to someone who needs it.I’ve been doing some research.The two justices who refuse to refuse themselves from illinois guns rights cases have given us an avenue of appeal When they make the wrong decision. there is supreme court president on it. I know you’re in touch with the attorneys who are arguing these and if they’re unaware of this they’ll be grateful to have it. I didn’t read calkins argument in his motion to recuse them but it seemed he focused mostly on the judicial conduct rules.

    see this:


    And see this, A case virtually identical to the facts here where these judges have been elected based on the millions of dollars donated to their campaigns by liberal democrats pushing this gun legislation:

    Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co. , Inc., 556 U.S. ___, No. 08–22, slip op. at 11 (citations omitted).
    Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, dissented, asserting that “a ‘probability of bias’ cannot be defined in any limited way,” “provides no guidance to judges and litigants about when recusal will be constitutionally required,” and “will inevitably lead to an increase in allegations that judges are biased, however groundless those charges may be.” Slip. op. at 1 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting). The majority countered that “[t]he facts now before us are extreme in any measure.” Slip op. at 17.

Comments are closed.