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 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Justice Ginsberg returns to the Court | Main | SHOT Show gun thieves caught »

Don't think I've ever seen this before....

Posted by David Hardy · 19 February 2019 10:04 AM

It doesn't pay to hack off the Supreme Court. They're ruled that a state cannot execute a person who is sufficiently mentally disabled, and given a general framework on how that is to be determined. The Texas Court of Appeals held that an execution was in order, and the Supremes reversed and remanded. Apparently, the Texas Court of Appeals changed their wording a little, used the same approach they had used the first time, and the defendant filed a second petition for certiorari.

This time the Court issued a per curiam reversal (not signed by any one judge, generally meaning "this case is a slam-dunk") and did so with nothing but the petition for cert. in front of it! That is, it granted the petition and ruled on the case in same order!. No briefs, no argument. (I've also never seen a per curiam with dissent).

Leave a comment