3rd Circuit Appeals - Upholds LCM Ban

jcutonilli · Sep 18, 2020

Applehd said:
Hmm... case after case after case involving the 2A lose in court. Over time, a pattern develops, but you refuse to see it. I need to look in the mirror...? Because I see a pattern...? I am not the only one that sees this based on comments by other folks here and elsewhere. YOU ALWAYS have a better idea. I read your Amicus brief and for a non-lawyer, know-nothing, I understood what you wrote. Bravo... I applaud your effort with the brief. However, you also seem to be judging the way these cases are being presented as if you are the supreme jurist over and above Roberts, yet I need to look in the mirror. I'm not so arrogant as to believe that I know everything about anything. But I do know a little about alot. My opinion is mine and I own it. I'm not always right and have no problem learning, but I'm not always wrong either.
I don't need a college degree to have an opinion... and just because you have a college degree, doesn't mean your opinion is always the right one. There is a long list of distinguished 2A attorneys and you won't find my name on that list... apparently, yours either. So we do have that in common.

Apologise for derailing with my non-lawyer-ishness.

You need to look in the mirror based on how you are justifying your opinion.

You are claiming that I refuse to see a pattern of 2A losses in court, yet my argument is that we are arguing the cases incorrectly. How exactly am I ignoring this pattern. My argument is contingent upon it.

I have never claimed that I ALWAYS have a better idea. I have never claimed that I am the supreme jurist over and above Roberts. I have never claimed that you need a college degree to have an opinion.

The lack of basis for any of your accusations suggests to me that you are one of those that judge by feelings and intentions. This is why you may want to look in a mirror.

I am willing to walk through what ever case you would like to try and validate if what I am saying is correct. You don't seem to want to do that. This again suggests you are really judging by feelings and intentions, which is why you may want to look in a mirror.

jcutonilli · Sep 18, 2020

wjackcooper said:
Good grief!

This stuff cannot be that hard to understand.

It should not be necessary to point out NY did not (and does not) have the power to “moot” a pending SC case. NY simply postured the case so the SC could wimp out.*

Apparently Kavanagh (look at his concurrence) went along with the wimp out believing the Court would take at least one pending 2A case, but got blindsided by the wimp out in Chief who blocked all 10.

Regards
Jack

*”By incorrectly dismissing this case as moot, the Court permits our docket to be manipulated in a way that should not be countenanced.”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-280_ba7d.pdf

After we granted certiorari, the State of New York amended its
firearm licensing statute, and the City amended the rule so that petitioners may now transport firearms to a second home or shooting range outside of the city, which is the precise relief that petitioners requested in the prayer for relief in their complaint. App. 48. Petitioners’ claim for declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the City’s old rule is therefore moot.

What part of moot do you not understand?

You need to read what Kavanaugh said again

I agree with the per curiam opinion’s resolution of the procedural issues before us—namely, that petitioners’ claim for injunctive relief against New York City’s old rule is moot and that petitioners’ new claims should be addressed as appropriate in the first instance by the Court of Appeals and the District Court on remand.
...
The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.

He agrees with the majority and there is no indication that he believes they would take one of the pending 2A cases.

This is not that hard to understand.

ShafTed · Sep 18, 2020

jcutonilli said:
Maybe Roberts is not really the problem.

rascal said:
on Scotus and 2A? he is manifestly the problem.
He is a political animal and has demonstrated he had decided already -- and signaled how he would rule on 2A.

Yes Roberts is completely the problem, but I don't believe he has sent the signal you think he has. If the radical left wing of the court thought they could depend on Roberts, they would have been taking every case they could get their hands on and 2A would be a distant memory. It's more likely that Roberts has explicitly told the other 8 that he would vote against whichever side forced him to take a case.

Remember: 4 to grant cert, but 5 to decide the case.

jcutonilli · Sep 18, 2020

TheOriginalMexicanBob said:
I'm thinking Kavanaugh went the way he did because he knew if any of the Second Amendment cases were heard it would likely end up a loss for the Constitution. He must have decided a strategic retreat was the best move until a solid pro-Constitution majority fills the Court.

At least...it's my opinion until events prove otherwise.

He voted to dismiss NYSRPA and wanted to take Rogers. How is that some kinds of strategic retreat?

press1280 · Sep 18, 2020

ShafTed said:
Yes Roberts is completely the problem, but I don't believe he has sent the signal you think he has. If the radical left wing of the court thought they could depend on Roberts, they would have been taking every case they could get their hands on and 2A would be a distant memory. It's more likely that Roberts has explicitly told the other 8 that he would vote against whichever side forced him to take a case.

Remember: 4 to grant cert, but 5 to decide the case.

I'm having trouble with this assumption along with him "signaling" he didn't want a 2A case. This would seem to me to be "bad behavior" by the Chief Justice. Or am I wrong?

fred55 · Sep 18, 2020

press1280 said:
I'm having trouble with this assumption along with him "signaling" he didn't want a 2A case. This would seem to me to be "bad behavior" by the Chief Justice. Or am I wrong?

I too find Roberts telling the other SCJ that he would vote against anyone that forced a 2A case hard to swallow. If that were the case and no other SCJ spoke up we really are screwed. I just think Roberts is compromised and/or has been neutered. At the minimum he is squirrely enough to give both sides cause for concern. fred55

kcbrown · Sep 18, 2020

jcutonilli said:
If a judge has already decided then the case is usually over and any errors committed by the judge need to be raised and argued in the next higher court.

No disagreement on that.

Judges base their decisions on the arguments presented.

They clearly don't base it solely on the arguments presented. If they did, then there wouldn't be a massive statistical difference in the decisions on the basis of the judges' political affiliations. But there is.

It is the litigants job to raise appropriate issues so that the judge can come to the appropriate decision based on the arguments presented. If the litigants fail to raise an issue then it will not likely be considered by the judge.

Really? So if a litigant says that the proper analytical method is intermediate scrutiny, proceeds to describe rational basis review as the method to use, proclaims that the described method is intermediate scrutiny, and all of that goes uncontested by the opposing party, the judge will robotically apply rational basis and call it intermediate scrutiny?

What's the point of having a judge who knows the law in all this if the judge just follows whatever arguments he finds more persuasive, irrespective of the jurisprudence that is supposed to bind him?

My point is that the plaintiffs are not raising the issue so the judges are not considering it.

Understood. But that has implications as to the competence of the plaintiffs' counsel.

You are missing the role of the court. It does not decide cases on its own. It relies on the litigants to inform it of the relevant issues. If the relevant issues are not raised then they are not really relevant to the case.

Really? So court precedent is relevant only if raised by a litigant?

SCOTUS is primarily concerned with the consistency across arguments. They are really looking to see if the appropriate standards are followed based on the arguments presented. They are not really concerned if the wrong answer is reached.

Well, if that's truly the case then exactly what's the point of SCOTUS at all? The answer we're talking about here is to the question of the Constitutionality of law or action. I would argue that a primary duty of SCOTUS is to ensure that the government remain within the bounds of the Constitution. Its role as a check against the other branches of government is a primary one. It cannot fulfill that role unless it corrects mistakes in the answers to that question, most especially when the errors of the lower courts allow Unconstitutional laws to stand.

SCOTUS started requiring electronic filings since the end of 2017 so any cases filed since then can be found on their website. SCOTUSblog has filings of some the more prominent cases. https://michellawyers.com/ contains a lot of 2A cases.

I've tried using the search function on SCOTUS' website to look for cert petitions and related briefs, but it doesn't seem to come up with anything. And examining all of the petitions and briefs by hand is a bit much for this.

I am not sure I would categorized the problem in terms of correctness vs persuasiveness. They certainly present and support their position correctly. The problem is not really the wording, but how they go about it. They certainly do challenge the data, but they do it by offering other data rather than challenge the government data directly. You or I would look at the data and conclude the government is wrong, but that conclusion is based on a lot of other data that was not presented. The judge looks and evaluates only what is presented. The real problem is that they have not challenged the government data directly so it is assumed valid. One dataset says one thing and the other says the opposite. It looks a lot like a political question. The default action for the court is to defer to the legislature, which is essentially what is done in these cases.

In what way would a direct challenge to the government data be regarded as anything other than political, if the presentation of different data is regarded as political? Is not conflicting data itself a direct challenge to the original data?

We are getting what appear to be political answers because the plaintiffs are framing the problem as a political one.

That's possible. But I would argue that we're getting political answers because the question itself is a political one, thanks to the very different viewpoints on the subject between the two major parties, and the judges in question are unwilling to dispense with their political biases when deciding the issue.

jcutonilli · Sep 19, 2020

kcbrown said:
They clearly don't base it solely on the arguments presented. If they did, then there wouldn't be a massive statistical difference in the decisions on the basis of the judges' political affiliations. But there is.

Really? So if a litigant says that the proper analytical method is intermediate scrutiny, proceeds to describe rational basis review as the method to use, proclaims that the described method is intermediate scrutiny, and all of that goes uncontested by the opposing party, the judge will robotically apply rational basis and call it intermediate scrutiny?

What's the point of having a judge who knows the law in all this if the judge just follows whatever arguments he finds more persuasive, irrespective of the jurisprudence that is supposed to bind him?

Understood. But that has implications as to the competence of the plaintiffs' counsel.

Really? So court precedent is relevant only if raised by a litigant?

I have presented an idealized situation that is very black and white. The real world is much more grey. Even just the language we use is not that precise and many things such as political affiliation affect how one perceives what is said.

Part of the problem is that the various levels of scrutiny are not precisely defined and is subject to some interpretation. Intermediate scrutiny is met if the

law or policy being challenged furthers an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest.

If the reasons that something is rational basis rather than intermediate scrutiny is so opaque that the opposing council does not pick up on it, it is unlikely that the judge will pick up on the issue.

Well, if that's truly the case then exactly what's the point of SCOTUS at all? The answer we're talking about here is to the question of the Constitutionality of law or action. I would argue that a primary duty of SCOTUS is to ensure that the government remain within the bounds of the Constitution. Its role as a check against the other branches of government is a primary one. It cannot fulfill that role unless it corrects mistakes in the answers to that question, most especially when the errors of the lower courts allow Unconstitutional laws to stand.

SCOTUS's main job is to ensure consistency, which is why splits between circuits are considered so important. There are too many cases for them to correct errors in individual cases.

In what way would a direct challenge to the government data be regarded as anything other than political, if the presentation of different data is regarded as political? Is not conflicting data itself a direct challenge to the original data?

Conflicting data may challenge the original data, but that is not how the courts are interpreting conflicting data. They see two competing and equally valid views with no real way to evaluate which side is correct. Those types of issues tend to be policy issues and the court defers to the legislature over policy issues.

Challenging the data directly allows the court to make a legal decision about the adequacy of the data.

That's possible. But I would argue that we're getting political answers because the question itself is a political one, thanks to the very different viewpoints on the subject between the two major parties, and the judges in question are unwilling to dispense with their political biases when deciding the issue.

The problem is that SCOTUS did not resolve the issue of public safety in Heller or McDonald. There remains sufficient historical justification for some restrictions to remain valid. This makes the answer very sensitive to how the problem is perceived. If you look at the problem one way, you get one answer, but if you look at it a different way you get a different answer. I suspect the real reason SCOTUS has not taken the case is that they don't really know how to resolve it without breaking something else.

press1280 · Sep 19, 2020

jcutonilli said:
I have presented an idealized situation that is very black and white. The real world is much more grey. Even just the language we use is not that precise and many things such as political affiliation affect how one perceives what is said.

Part of the problem is that the various levels of scrutiny are not precisely defined and is subject to some interpretation. Intermediate scrutiny is met if the

If the reasons that something is rational basis rather than intermediate scrutiny is so opaque that the opposing council does not pick up on it, it is unlikely that the judge will pick up on the issue.

SCOTUS's main job is to ensure consistency, which is why splits between circuits are considered so important. There are too many cases for them to correct errors in individual cases.

Conflicting data may challenge the original data, but that is not how the courts are interpreting conflicting data. They see two competing and equally valid views with no real way to evaluate which side is correct. Those types of issues tend to be policy issues and the court defers to the legislature over policy issues.

Challenging the data directly allows the court to make a legal decision about the adequacy of the data.

The problem is that SCOTUS did not resolve the issue of public safety in Heller or McDonald. There remains sufficient historical justification for some restrictions to remain valid. This makes the answer very sensitive to how the problem is perceived. If you look at the problem one way, you get one answer, but if you look at it a different way you get a different answer. I suspect the real reason SCOTUS has not taken the case is that they don't really know how to resolve it without breaking something else.

I would say this is true even if we exclude the liberals from the equation (who obviously aren't going to vote for cert when the government wins in the lower court). Every time we get a cert denial dissent, it's always Thomas and what seems to be a rotation between Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Alito signing on. You would think more than just 2 at a time would have an issue with certain cases being denied cert. And it's puzzling how similar cases (Peruta and Rogers) have Gorsuch joining in dissent in Peruta but not Rogers.

I still do not see how may issue schemes can keep being upheld when the only on point case law goes the other way. No other constitutional right that I'm aware of is allowed to be restricted to a select few and denied to the masses based on a local authorities whim.

wjackcooper · Sep 19, 2020

jcutonilli said:
What part of moot do you not understand?

You need to read what Kavanaugh said again
He agrees with the majority and there is no indication that he believes they would take one of the pending 2A cases.
This is not that hard to understand.

Ok,

One more time:

You appear to remain convinced that NY “mooted” the case. Take a careful look at your quotes; hint, they do not mean what you seem to think they mean.

Perhaps in Venezuela, North Korea, Somalia, or China a govt. entity may have power to moot a case against itself. The power to moot a case against the govt. in this country is solely, wholly, entirely, completely, exclusively, and only within the power the Courts. My ninth grade history teacher pointed out that power (another hint: executive, legislative, & judicial) is separated among the different branches of govt. under the U.S. Constitution.*

Basically NY put the case in a position (by changing its laws) where there would be at least a superficial reason for the SC to wimp out, i.e., moot the case.**

Regards
Jack

*James Madison on the need for the “separation of powers” https://oll.libertyfund.org/quotes/180
**The four justiciability doctrines are standing, ripeness, political question, and mootness. These doctrines will render a controversy "nonjusticiable" if a court decides that any one of them applies.”
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RS22599.html

jcutonilli · Sep 19, 2020

wjackcooper said:
Ok,

One more time:

You appear to remain convinced that NY “mooted” the case. Take a careful look at your quotes; hint, they do not mean what you seem to think they mean.

Perhaps in Venezuela, North Korea, Somalia, or China a govt. entity may have power to moot a case against itself. The power to moot a case against the govt. in this country is solely, wholly, entirely, completely, exclusively, and only within the power the Courts. My ninth grade history teacher pointed out that power (another hint: executive, legislative, & judicial) is separated among the different branches of govt. under the U.S. Constitution.*

Basically NY put the case in a position (by changing its laws) where there would be at least a superficial reason for the SC to wimp out, i.e., moot the case.**

Regards
Jack

*James Madison on the need for the “separation of powers” https://oll.libertyfund.org/quotes/180
**The four justiciability doctrines are standing, ripeness, political question, and mootness. These doctrines will render a controversy "nonjusticiable" if a court decides that any one of them applies.”
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RS22599.html

I am not sure YOU understand what they mean.

NY did what any defendant can do to moot a case; give the plaintiff what they ask. This is not a superficial reason, it is the basis of the case.

I do not see anything that suggests that NY simply declared the case moot without giving the plaintiff what they asked. I also don't see any indication that the reason for the case being moot is anything other than NY giving the plaintiffs what they ask. NY, through their actions, are the basis for the case being moot.

Why is this so hard to understand?

jcutonilli · Sep 19, 2020

press1280 said:
I would say this is true even if we exclude the liberals from the equation (who obviously aren't going to vote for cert when the government wins in the lower court). Every time we get a cert denial dissent, it's always Thomas and what seems to be a rotation between Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Alito signing on. You would think more than just 2 at a time would have an issue with certain cases being denied cert. And it's puzzling how similar cases (Peruta and Rogers) have Gorsuch joining in dissent in Peruta but not Rogers.

I still do not see how may issue schemes can keep being upheld when the only on point case law goes the other way. No other constitutional right that I'm aware of is allowed to be restricted to a select few and denied to the masses based on a local authorities whim.

I don't believe Alito has ever joined a 2A cert denial dissent. Scalia has joined a cert denial dissent though(Jackson v SF).

kcbrown · Sep 19, 2020

jcutonilli said:
I have presented an idealized situation that is very black and white. The real world is much more grey. Even just the language we use is not that precise and many things such as political affiliation affect how one perceives what is said.

Part of the problem is that the various levels of scrutiny are not precisely defined and is subject to some interpretation. Intermediate scrutiny is met if the

If the reasons that something is rational basis rather than intermediate scrutiny is so opaque that the opposing council does not pick up on it, it is unlikely that the judge will pick up on the issue.

The situation I was presenting was an hypothetical one for the purpose of asking the question: is the judge merely someone who decides solely on the basis of the arguments presented to him, or is the judge also constrained by the court system's current interpretation of the Constitution and by the judicial precedent that has already been set?

Your argument suggests that it is the former, that the judge would contradict precedent if presented only with a set of arguments that conflicted with current precedent, even when those arguments do not show current precedent to be Unconstitutional.

You already cited current precedent as to a requirement of intermediate scrutiny. While the definition of intermediate scrutiny might not contain that requirement, current precedent most certainly does. Is or is not the court constrained by current precedent, except where arguments show such precedent to be Unconstitutional?

SCOTUS's main job is to ensure consistency, which is why splits between circuits are considered so important. There are too many cases for them to correct errors in individual cases.

I disagree. SCOTUS' main job is, and must be, to ensure that the court system and the rest of the government is consistently Constitutional. Their primary means of doing that is through point corrections to lower court decisions, because the expectation is that the lower courts will fall in line behind SCOTUS once SCOTUS has rendered a decision and that the lower courts aren't too stupid to apply the resulting precedent properly in later cases.

Put another way, consistency is worthless without that consistency being in the correct direction. Being consistently wrong is still wrong no matter how you slice it, and one could argue that being consistently wrong is worse than randomly being wrong.

As such, the above clearly means that SCOTUS' job is not merely to ensure consistency, but rather to ensure correct consistency.

Every case which is decided by the lower judiciary in a way that conflicts with the original intended meaning of the Constitution is a failure of that judiciary, regardless of the reason (save for when determination of the original intended meaning is completely impossible). The job of SCOTUS is to eliminate those failures, and it is a failure of SCOTUS every time it fails to correct such failures of the lower courts, for in doing so, SCOTUS is intentionally allowing Unconstitutional laws to remain in force. This is worse than a mere mistake, this is intentional. There is no worse travesty than that for a body whose purpose is to uphold the Supreme Law of the Land above all else. SCOTUS is the topmost court. It represents the entire judiciary in its role, and that's that.

Conflicting data may challenge the original data, but that is not how the courts are interpreting conflicting data. They see two competing and equally valid views with no real way to evaluate which side is correct. Those types of issues tend to be policy issues and the court defers to the legislature over policy issues.

If the courts interpret conflicting data as a policy choice, what makes you believe that they won't likewise interpret a direct challenge to the government's data as a policy choice as well?

Challenging the data directly allows the court to make a legal decision about the adequacy of the data.

Sure, it could. But it also could make a legal decision about the validity of the data presented to it by either side, rather than declaring that a policy choice.

There are many things the court could do. But the question here is why the court would apply the label of "policy choice" to one challenge (the case where different data is presented, with the argument, whether implicit or explicit, that the other data is invalid or less valid) and not to the other challenge (the case where the challenge is to the interpretation of the government's data). The court could just as easily claim that the interpretation of data is a matter of policy and beyond the reach of the court, no? After all, interpretation of data isn't a matter of law, is it?

The problem is that SCOTUS did not resolve the issue of public safety in Heller or McDonald. There remains sufficient historical justification for some restrictions to remain valid. This makes the answer very sensitive to how the problem is perceived. If you look at the problem one way, you get one answer, but if you look at it a different way you get a different answer. I suspect the real reason SCOTUS has not taken the case is that they don't really know how to resolve it without breaking something else.

That is most certainly a possibility. But at this point, given the sheer number and breadth of cases that have been lain before it, I'm skeptical. If that really is the reason that SCOTUS has refused to take the vast, vast majority of 2A cases, then we can basically expect the lower courts to generally go uncorrected for very nearly every case, due to SCOTUS' paralyzing fear of breaking something else.

It is for reasons such as this that I argue that SCOTUS' primary duty must be to the Constitution itself, and to ensure that government stays within its bounds. Stare decisis must never override the Constitution's directives, nor must fear of breaking something, and while the Court's decisions may have an extra-Constitutional impact on society, that problem is for the legislature to deal with. It is not the Court's problem that societal impact can arise from the Court correcting an Unconstitutional law or act -- such impact wouldn't have happened if the government had stayed within the bounds of the Constitution in the first place, which makes any such damage the direct fault of the government itself and not of the Court.

And if the Court is concerned about the legal repercussions to its own jurisprudence of properly deciding a case, well, it should have properly decided the other cases leading up to it in the first place, and established proper and correct jurisprudence, and then it wouldn't have that problem. Meaning, the Court should properly decide cases and just take its medicine if doing so affects prior jurisprudence.

kcbrown · Sep 19, 2020

jcutonilli said:
I don't believe Alito has ever joined a 2A cert denial dissent. Scalia has joined a cert denial dissent though(Jackson v SF).

It would look really strange in any case for 3 judges to join a dissent to denial of cert, seeing how it takes 4 to grant cert. So that means that you'll never see more than 2 judges joining a dissent to denial of cert.

wjackcooper · Sep 19, 2020

jcutonilli said:
I am not sure YOU understand what they mean.

NY did what any defendant can do to moot a case; give the plaintiff what they ask. This is not a superficial reason, it is the basis of the case.

I do not see anything that suggests that NY simply declared the case moot without giving the plaintiff what they asked. I also don't see any indication that the reason for the case being moot is anything other than NY giving the plaintiffs what they ask. NY, through their actions, are the basis for the case being moot.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Ok

Here is what you said in post # 57:

“The court did not moot the case, NYC did.”.

Now you are saying in post #71:

“NY, through their actions, are the basis for the case being moot.”

looks like I was able to help you (you’re welcome) - although, it would be more candid to say . . . “the case being” mooted by the court.

At any rate, I am reminded of Alice’s attempts to communicate with Humpty Dumpty.*

Regards
Jack

*https://sabian.org/looking_glass6.php

wjackcooper · Sep 19, 2020

kcbrown said:
It would look really strange in any case for 3 judges to join a dissent to denial of cert, seeing how it takes 4 to grant cert. So that means that you'll never see more than 2 judges joining a dissent to denial of cert.

Shame on you for pointing out the obvious. It will be disputed here , don’t you know?

Regards
Jack

jcutonilli · Sep 19, 2020

kcbrown said:
It would look really strange in any case for 3 judges to join a dissent to denial of cert, seeing how it takes 4 to grant cert. So that means that you'll never see more than 2 judges joining a dissent to denial of cert.

The issue I am raising in not about the number of judges. It is about who is joining these dissents. I don't believe Alito has joined one of Thomas's dissents, although Scalia has.

press1280 said:
Every time we get a cert denial dissent, it's always Thomas and what seems to be a rotation between Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Alito signing on.

This is still a valid point.

You would think more than just 2 at a time would have an issue with certain cases being denied cert. And it's puzzling how similar cases (Peruta and Rogers) have Gorsuch joining in dissent in Peruta but not Rogers.

It is about how only one other justice joins the dissent. Two total.

I still do not see how may issue schemes can keep being upheld when the only on point case law goes the other way. No other constitutional right that I'm aware of is allowed to be restricted to a select few and denied to the masses based on a local authorities whim.[/QUOTE]

jcutonilli · Sep 19, 2020

wjackcooper said:
Ok

Here is what you said in post # 57:

“The court did not moot the case, NYC did.”.

Now you are saying in post #71:

“NY, through their actions, are the basis for the case being moot.”

looks like I was able to help you (you’re welcome) - although, it would be more candid to say . . . “the case being” mooted by the court.

At any rate, I am reminded of Alice’s attempts to communicate with Humpty Dumpty.*

Regards
Jack

*https://sabian.org/looking_glass6.php

I did not say that in post 57. I said that in post 45. They say the same thing, namely that the basis for mooting the court originates with the NYC. The court played no role in giving the plaintiffs what they were asking for.

kcbrown · Sep 19, 2020

jcutonilli said:
The issue I am raising in not about the number of judges. It is about who is joining these dissents. I don't believe Alito has joined one of Thomas's dissents, although Scalia has.

Understood. Apologies for the confusion -- I was making a general point about the nature of dissents to denial of cert, and thought your message was as good a way to provide that context as anything else.

wjackcooper · Sep 19, 2020

jcutonilli said:
I did not say that in post 57. I said that in post 45. They say the same thing, namely that the basis for mooting the court originates with the NYC. The court played no role in giving the plaintiffs what they were asking for.

Ok, You were directly quoted in post 57.

Why is it so hard say “a party has no power to moot a case”?

"The court played no role in giving the plaintiffs what they were asking for."

Wow!!!

I am starting to sympathize with Alice.

Regards
Jack

3rd Circuit Appeals - Upholds LCM Ban

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Senior

Super Genius

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Super Genius

Super Genius

Active Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Super Genius

Active Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics