Yesterday, Mark Smith at Four Boxes Diner had a good piece on the potential silver lining in the denial of the en banc rehearing petition.

Yes, it’s 13 minutes and I’ll cut to the chase:  The State (the defendants) have pleaded to the US Supreme Court to allow the cases to continue to percolate through the system to their conclusion before interceding.  Well, in this case, the Illinois case has percolated through the system – at least where it comes to the interlocutory appeals – and yesterday’s denial of the en banc rehearing essentially ended percolation for the case.  As such, that opens the door to SCOTUS.

Ordinarily I’d dismiss SCOTUS taking action on a matter like this as extremely unlikely and almost unheard of, and I’m pretty sure Esquire Smith would agree.  However, what he seems to be saying is that given the 7th Circuit’s repeated flagrant refusal to accept their role as an INFERIOR court might increase the potential for SCOTUS to publicly rebuke them.   I agree with that as well.

Watch the whole thing for explanation of all the details.




7 thoughts on “Lawyer Mark Smith of ‘Four Boxes Diner’ sees upside in yesterday’s denial of en banc rehearing petition”
  1. I hope the courts figure this out soon. The ISP shouldn’t be jerked around like this. I have sympathy for them! Thank goodness Senator Plummer is in the chamber to represent the state agencies. He has expressed sympathy for the ISP before on Bishop on Air and it warms my heart. They need our complete respect right now during these trying times.

    1. Why don’t you use YOUR name “ken”, instead of an “ali-A$$” to implicate me? you really are GRIFTER LYING SCUM!

  2. SCOTUS has gun cases on the docket, so adding one more in violation of Bruen, et al. might well happen. This is especially in light of SCOTUS reversing of Maryland’s assault weapon ban Federal appellate ruling, which sent the case back to the lower court to try again–this time to try following SCOTUS rulings.

  3. ISP should not be jerked around? What? If an ISP trooper enforces this statute, that will be found unconstitutional by year end 2024, against a citizen the trooper should be prosecuted for official misconduct the moment that finding is entered. I understand politicians don’t care and will draft and pass unconstitutional legislation. Those charges with enforcing laws should be held to a higher standard. It is time for consequences for both legislators and LEO’s who violate our constitutional rights. No sympathy from me; do your f’n job according to the oath you swore or suffer consequences!

    1. You are correct. However some people in the 2A world are such boot lickers they’ll make up any excuse they can for police bad behavior rather than accept that the political right fucked up by adopting the 2nd amendment AND “back the blue” religion for police causes. Those two things don’t mix as they directly conflict with each other. Police are the enforcement arm for the gun control lawmakers and activists. It’s like chickens for KFC, Gays for Palestine or cows for Burger King. People can blame the governor until they’re blue in the face for gun control but it’s the cops that conduct the unconstitutional actions against citizens and ruin their livelihoods. It’s easy as daylight to connect the dots but some partisans refuse to. That’s just what it is and the boot lickers among us are a burden to the 2A cause. People just don’t want to accept or show that they’ve been duped and have been wrong.

  4. GLS1589 should reconsider and change his name to GSL1776. The US Constitution is pretty clear about it and when you take an oath to uphold that Constitution you can’t waver. I took my oath a long time ago and it has never expired. Jeff Cholewinski and Travis are right on the mark.

Comments are closed.