The case in question is rather interesting in and of itself, essentially questioning the permanent disarmament of convicted felons, however, it is beside the point of this thread and is unlikely to be granted.
However, this case may serve a greater purpose, even if certiorari is ultimately denied.
The above link is to a Motion to Substitute Respondents in this case, specifically to substitute Rod J. Rosenstein for Jefferson B. Sessions, rather than Matthew Whitaker. In deciding this motion, the Supreme Court must determine who the proper Respondent in this case is, the proper Respondent legally being either the Attorney General or the Acting Attorney General. In deciding this motion, the Supreme Court would decide who properly is Acting Attorney General.
I would note that a decision on this motion does NOT require that the Supreme Court grant Certiorari in the underlying case. They very well may decide this motion, but deny the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari.
I am still up in the air on this. There are very compelling legal arguments to be made either way.
Right now…you have neither. What you do have is a government attempting to thwart the wishes of those who cast their votes in another direction and attempting to stifle any speech that exposes this and label it…“hate speech”. Wow…just wow.
You think Tommy Robinson is a good guy being oppressed by the UK Govt, so forgive me for not taking your view too seriously here.
Brexiteers were lied to, now reality is coming home to roost as they realise they can’t get what they thought they could. Instead we have bad option A, bad option B or bad option C. Every one will displease both sides.
I wasn’t very impressed with May since day 1, but she has an impossible situation to deal with here.
