Videogame legal watchdogs were anxiously refreshing the Supreme Court website this morning for the latest word on the Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA) v. Schwarzenegger appeal.
Unfortunately, however, the case was not listed at all in the 91-page issued Orders (link to PDF). As noted previously, SCOTUS could have denied the appeal without comment last week and then officially noted the result in today’s dispatch., but it appears that the petition for certiorari has neither been granted or denied as of yet.
Comments
FOR URGENT RELEASE!
We still dont know anything more.... please stand by
It is possible that it got lost in the shuffle(being that the conference was longer than usual with all the petitions from the summer) or that SCOTUS "Pigeon Holed" California's appeal(rejected it but not mentioning it at all), but it's also possible that they held it for further review in another conference.
Bottom line: We should know for sure one way or the other by next Monday.
Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra.
If they held it for further review in another conference wouldn't have the court noted that in it's "Order Issues" that it released today?
"No law means no law" - Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment
Possibly, but according to SCOTUSBlog, Kiyemba v. Obama(a case on the rights of Guantanamo detainees) wasn't on the Orders list either and will be reconsidered in their conference Friday.
Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra.
I looked at the dockets at the Supreme Court website and still nothing new for the EMA v. Schwarzenegger case but the docket for the Kiyemba v. Obama case does mentions the re-distribution of the case on Friday Oct. 9th.
Could the appeal have not have even made it to the Justices in the first place as one of their clerks thought it wasn't even worth bringing it up to them or would that have been mentioned in the Special Orders section as a denial of certiorari?
"No law means no law" - Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment
I have no clue about that one, so I'll leave it to JDKJ or Gameslaw to answer that, but I assume that the clerks would have to bring any petition of certiorari to the Justices(unless there was a problem with the petition itself?).
Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra.
I forgot that Columbus Day is a federal holiday, so the Court will be closed Monday, so if there's any order, it'll be announced on Tuesday this week.
Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra.
Schwartzenegger versus the Supreme Court - Can't you just see it? Ah`nold busting through the courtroom doors, carrying a minigun, smoking his cigar, yelling, "We must protect ze children from ze violence!! AAAAAHHHHH!!!!!"
And then some developer would make a game based on it.
which will get blamed for any teenage violence that pops up... and thus the cycle continues
Leave it alone Governator, you've got more important things to do. I heard that his entire evacuation strategy for the wildfires is to have everyone get to the choppa.
---You are likely to be eaten by a Grue.
Also, only pregnant women can have firefighting equipment, and only use them in a defensive purpose. The fire won't hurt you if you're unarmed.
"That's not ironic. That's justice."
How can California even afford this? Last time I heard, it was on the verge of Bankruptcy...
When it comes to "protecting teh childrenz frum reel lyfe" money is no object
---You are likely to be eaten by a Grue.
The verge of bankruptcy? Oh no. They're just waiting to hit the ground after flinging themselves off the cliff. They're having to drastically cut education's budget, paying people in IOU's, the list goes on all day. They're not on the verge.
It's sad that with all the financial problems in commiefornia, they're still wasting money on this crap.
I suspect you assume that "commiefornia" is some of left-wing bastion but you may be overestimating. You may be surprised to learn that "commiefornia" falls right in line with much of your political leanings. It's got some of the most virulent anti-immigrant sentiment I've ever experienced. It's also one of the first states to roll-back affirmative action in its public university systems in addition to having some of the worst race-relations I've ever experienced. And it's also the place where Proposition 8 outlawing gay marriage was successfully passed. Don't sleep on "commiefornia." You may find that you'd fit right in the Golden State.
It's also the biggest nanny-state in the union. Oh, and it's got that city, LA, where it's illegal to ask illegal immigrants for documentation.
Commiefornia is absolutely a left-wing bastion; most right-wing folk left the state when it began its ridiculous economic practices that drove so many businesses from the state.
Oh, and want to know something hilarious? The same community that voted massively en-bloc for Barack Obama? It's one of the most homophobic communities in the world, if not THE most.
Surely, that anti-immigrant sentiment has nothing to do with the huge draw that those people are on the states, the legion of 'anchor babies' they pop out, their abuse of the health-care, education, and other welfare systems in the 'welfare state', and this list can go on all week.
And honestly, it's not surprising it's got such terrible race-relations; we all saw how bad the relations were in '92, then again in 08 when a black youth killed four police and was touted as a hero in the 'urban' community.
Again, I tell you that the perception of everyone in California being a tie-dye shirt wearing, Prius driving hippie is far from the reality. And I'm neither supporting or defending all the factual manifestations of that reality I pointed out to you, so there's no need for you to defend or justify them. I merely point to them as support for the proposition that "commiefornia" is far from a left-wing bastion. At least not enough to prohibit the election of a Republican Governor.
Arnold is barely a Republican. He tried to right the financial future of the good ship Cali years ago, when he first took office, and since then, he's done nothing but acquiesce to the liberals' demands of more spending.
Actually, if you knew anything about California politics or law, you'd know that the Governor, regardless of party affiliation, has next to no control of the State's budget. That power, by law resulting from ballot initiative, rests almost entirely with the State Legislature.
As a Republic, doesn't the governor still have to sign bills and whatnot? Or is that place a republic in name only?
And if it is a Republic, couldn't the governator propose a budget, and, say, threaten to veto everything else until they adopt a budget that isn't borderline retarded?
Under California law, the Legislature writes the budget. The Governor can only recommend what the budget should look like, but lawmakers can ignore his recommendations and do whatever they please. While the Governor does have the ability to either reject all of the budget passed by the Legislature, accept all of it, or line-item veto some of it, the first option is hardly ever exercised because it takes the unusual and difficult-to-get two-thirds majority of the Legislature to pass a budget in the first place. The line-item veto only allows the Governor to dictate what dollars shouldn't be spent on, not on what they should be spent. The voters of California actually have more power than both the Governor and the Legislature to dictate what dollars should be spent on through the use of ballot initiatives. And this power often has a substantial impact on the budget. For example, Proposition 98, which guarantees minimum spending levels and annual increases thereto for public education, now accounts for 30% of spending from the General Fund. Which means that before the Legislature and Governor can even consider their first budgetary move, the voters of California have already determined how a third of the annual budget gets spent. And this spending is beyond the reach of the Governor's line-item veto. There are similar Propositions which have been passed with similar impacts on the budget. All this amounts to a system in which the Governor has little to no control over the State's budget allocations.
All this has nothing to do with whether or not there's a republican form of government but, FYI, there is.
They could atlease tell us they rejected the petition.
http://www.magicinkgaming.com/
Hey if the state wins both the appeal and the hypothetical supreme court case does that mean they won't have to reimburse legal fees?
----------------------------------------------------
Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it's over they have the same positions they started in.
Yes, and plus the EMA and ESA would have to reimburse the money California's already paid to them for the first two rounds.
Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra.