http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_video.php?pk_vid=0000011062

We had oral arguments in Fisher v Kealoha yesterday.  My cocounsel Te hina argued. This is a challenge to Hawaii's crime of violence law.

Did finish entire video, or been to a court with 3 judges.  But it seems like all 3 seemed like they already made up their minds before she even began her opening statement.

Interesting change. Fisher's attorney need to be a little more prepared. Kind of dry and a little hard to follow but still interesting.The state attorney was also kind of stuck on some of the judge's difficult questions.

I think that the failure of Fisher to attempt for a pardon through the governor is going to hurt his case though. It is sort of on separate grounds as I understand it but it would have been handy if they could show the established methods failed Fisher.

Interesting change. Fisher's attorney need to be a little more prepared. Kind of dry and a little hard to follow but still interesting.The state attorney was also kind of stuck on some of the judge's difficult questions.

I think that the failure of Fisher to attempt for a pardon through the governor is going to hurt his case though. It is sort of on separate grounds as I understand it but it would have been handy if they could show the established methods failed Fisher.

The biggest argument as bought up by the judges is that the Governor can choose to issue a pardon and not MUST issue a pardon when they meet XXX standards.

The biggest argument as bought up by the judges is that the Governor can choose to issue a pardon and not MUST issue a pardon when they meet XXX standards.

Agreed, it shows that much power is left up to the whim of the governor.

The biggest argument as bought up by the judges is that the Governor can choose to issue a pardon and not MUST issue a pardon when they meet XXX standards.

Agreed, it shows that much power is left up to the whim of the governor.

At 18:54 one of the judges (Bea) asked the government attorney (GA) "Are there any standards by which the governor does or does not grant relief?" (GA) "It's entirely discretionary". (Bea) "He can take a look at the defendant and say "You part your hair on the wrong side so therefore I deny it"? (GA) "It's at the governor's discretion."

Okay, who here thinks a politician is going to make an "objective" decision about pardons? You know, like those hundreds of people Obama pardoned in the last couple weeks of his lame duck term, and earlier, including the ones that have already committed more crimes. Like this guy: "A convicted crack dealer who left prison early as part of the Obama administration’s mass release of federal inmates has been indicted by a grand jury for fatally stabbing his ex-girlfriend and her two kids in Columbus, Ohio. The gory crime drew national attention because the children, ages 7 and 10, were murdered to eliminate them as witnesses in the brutal massacre of their 32-year-old mother."

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2016/03/crack-dealer-freed-early-under-obama-plan-murders-woman-2-kids/

At 18:54 one of the judges (Bea) asked the government attorney (GA) "Are there any standards by which the governor does or does not grant relief?" (GA) "It's entirely discretionary". (Bea) "He can take a look at the defendant and say "You part your hair on the wrong side so therefore I deny it"? (GA) "It's at the governor's discretion."

Okay, who here thinks a politician is going to make an "objective" decision about pardons? You know, like those hundreds of people Obama pardoned in the last couple weeks of his lame duck term, and earlier, including the ones that have already committed more crimes. Like this guy: "A convicted crack dealer who left prison early as part of the Obama administration’s mass release of federal inmates has been indicted by a grand jury for fatally stabbing his ex-girlfriend and her two kids in Columbus, Ohio. The gory crime drew national attention because the children, ages 7 and 10, were murdered to eliminate them as witnesses in the brutal massacre of their 32-year-old mother."

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2016/03/crack-dealer-freed-early-under-obama-plan-murders-woman-2-kids/

You either in the hale or not...

Fisher v. Kealoha decision issued today: Fisher loses his appeal (1997 domestic "harassment" conviction is valid legal grounds for being designated a "prohibited person").

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/05/05/14-16514.pdf

Decision by Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals three judge panel, which included the most adamant Second Amendment rights defending judge, Judge Kozinski. His "ruminating" remarks following the decision should be read by those who believe our rights should be exercised without government infringement.

Excerpts from Kozinski:

This unbounded discretion sits in uneasy tension with how rights function. A right is a check on state power, a check that loses its force when it exists at the mercy of the state. Government whim is the last refuge of a precarious right. [And how precarious is a right that cannot be lawfully exercised at all due to government whim? (See: "bear arms" in Hawaii)]

In other contexts, we don't let constitutional rights hinge on unbounded discretion: the Supreme Court has told us, for example, that "[t[he First Amendment prohibits the vesting of such unbridled discretion in a government official."

The time has come to treat the Second Amendment as a real constitutional right. It's here to stay.