Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.6.2
Site Design by Sekimori

« Traffic stop -- possible world record | Main | Yet another Bloomberg mayor bites the dust »

That's got to hurt

Posted by David Hardy · 18 November 2013 08:33 PM

Yesterday I posted regarding Erik Holder's attempt to take an interlocutory appeal from a trial court ruling that the Issa Committee's contempt suit could proceed. The trial court today denied his motion, noting

"As the authority cited by defendant indicates, the Court must objectively determine whether the issue for appeal is one on which there is a substantial ground for dispute. See In re Vitamins Antitrust Litig., No. 99-197 TFH, 2000 WL 33142129, *2 (D.D.C. Nov. 22, 2000) (“It is the duty of the district judge faced with a motion for certification to analyze the strength of the arguments in opposition to the challenged rulings when deciding whether the issue of appeal is truly one on which there is a substantial ground for dispute.”)

The Court is not of the opinion that its denial of the motion to dismiss involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion. As explained in the Memorandum Opinion, the ruling was based upon Supreme Court precedent and Circuit precedent, and it was decided in accordance with an opinion issued by another judge of this court in a substantially similar matter: Comm. on the Judiciary v. Miers, 558 F. Supp. 2d 53 (D.D.C. 2008). Defendant has not pointed to any precedent that would supply the grounds for a difference of opinion; Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997), which found that individual members of Congress did not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of a legislative enactment, does not govern this action."

1 Comment | Leave a comment

SPQR | November 22, 2013 9:59 PM | Reply

That should sting, since the court basically called their citation frivolous.

Leave a comment