Supreme Court Takes Major NRA Second Amendment Case from New York

jcutonilli · Oct 7, 2019

danb said:
The comment "The question of mootness will be subject to further consideration at oral argument, and the parties should be prepared to discuss it " sounds like a somewhat meaningless concession to the courts liberals. I mean, duh, of course they should be prepared to discuss it. I am not even sure what that means, anyone can change their mind if the facts change.

I don't believe that it is meaningless. They have not dismissed the issue of mootness, they have postponed it for further consideration at oral argument. They may ultimately dismiss the case for mootness once they challenge both sides at oral argument. They may also find there are sufficient ground to decide the case. We need to wait to find out which they decide.

danb · Oct 7, 2019

jcutonilli said:
I don't believe that it is meaningless. They have not dismissed the issue of mootness, they have postponed it for further consideration at oral argument. They may ultimately dismiss the case for mootness once they challenge both sides at oral argument. They may also find there are sufficient ground to decide the case. We need to wait to find out which they decide.

"The Respondents’ Suggestion of Mootness is denied. "

Denied, it seems to me, means denied. I think there were 4 or fewer people who thought it was moot and want to write a dissent.

jcutonilli · Oct 7, 2019

danb said:
"The Respondents’ Suggestion of Mootness is denied. "

Denied, it seems to me, means denied. I think there were 4 or fewer people who thought it was moot and want to write a dissent.

The Respondents' Suggestion of Mootness was essentially a motion to dismiss the case for mootness. They certainly denied the motion and will proceed with the case. It seems to me that "The question of mootness will be subject to further consideration at oral argument" means that the issue (question) of mootness has not been decided and that it will be decided at oral argument. That is what "subject to further consideration" means.

Boxcab · Oct 7, 2019

jcutonilli said:
The Respondents' Suggestion of Mootness was essentially a motion to dismiss the case for mootness. They certainly denied the motion and will proceed with the case. It seems to me that "The question of mootness will be subject to further consideration at oral argument" means that the issue (question) of mootness has not been decided and that it will be decided at oral argument. That is what "subject to further consideration" means.

The chains move forward for another set of downs.... I'll take it.

.

danb · Oct 7, 2019

jcutonilli said:
The Respondents' Suggestion of Mootness was essentially a motion to dismiss the case for mootness. They certainly denied the motion and will proceed with the case. It seems to me that "The question of mootness will be subject to further consideration at oral argument" means that the issue (question) of mootness has not been decided and that it will be decided at oral argument. That is what "subject to further consideration" means.

Sure, some people have not decided. But clearly at least 5 justices have decided, or they would have dismissed the case.

jcutonilli · Oct 7, 2019

danb said:
Sure, some people have not decided. But clearly at least 5 justices have decided, or they would have dismissed the case.

If 5 justices have already decided the issue of mootness then they would have said so. There would be no need to discuss the issue of mootness at oral argument. I suspect that there are nuances that the justices want to flush out before deciding the issue. This is why they wrote what they did. They want both sides to be prepared to discuss the issue, which is why they said "the parties should be prepared to discuss it"

Paul Clement talked about this at the Heritage Foundation

https://www.heritage.org/courts/event/supreme-court-preview-the-2019-2020-term

He talked more about the issue of mootness than he did about the case and indicated that this was a likely outcome.

motorcoachdoug · Oct 7, 2019

I have written 02Dec on my wall calendar to be their. I really want to see Paul in action before the court on this issue and I also would not be surprised if Herr Baron frosh has a person from his office their as well plus now NYC and or NY State must show up before the court as well to tell them why it is moot. If SCOTUS decides it is not moot,then I wonder when would they have the arguments about the law then?

jcutonilli · Oct 7, 2019

motorcoachdoug said:
I have written 02Dec on my wall calendar to be their. I really want to see Paul in action before the court on this issue and I also would not be surprised if Herr Baron frosh has a person from his office their as well plus now NYC and or NY State must show up before the court as well to tell them why it is moot. If SCOTUS decides it is not moot,then I wonder when would they have the arguments about the law then?

The arguments on 2 Dec will be both about the case and about the issue of mootness.

ddestruel · Oct 7, 2019

By not declaring the case moot from the city's the motion to dismiss then in theory SCOTUS could render a ruling as why it is or is not moot, clearing up some of that judicial review with voluntary cessation territory in conjunction with whatever or however they rule with the NYSRPA case and proper judicial review practices with regard to 2nd amendment litigation.

That will be very interesting if they go after biting two apples instead of one.

Given the antics and various insults thrown at the SCOTUS, one can only speculate as to how this might play out.

I would love to see them narrow the field and clarify voluntary cessation attempts after seeing what NYC and NYS did to try and subvert judicial review. And then stack on top of that a clear judicial review process for 2nd amendment claims narrowing the lower courts ability to implement the current two step fiasco that the courts have been using to allow virtually any and most onerous regulations to stand.

it fun to imagine Justice Thomas chomping at the bit to write something scathing

danb · Oct 7, 2019

But they have not asked for any other briefs on the mootness.

If they we going to review the merits of mootness, wouldnt they ask for more briefs or add a question?

"be prepared to discuss it" is pretty vague.

frogman68 · Oct 7, 2019

Justice Thomas was absent. Did he get to call his vote in??? Or did one of the liberals vote for this hmmmm

jcutonilli · Oct 7, 2019

danb said:
But they have not asked for any other briefs on the mootness.

If they we going to review the merits of mootness, wouldnt they ask for more briefs or add a question?

"be prepared to discuss it" is pretty vague.

The Respondents' Suggestion of Mootness included a brief on mootness. If you recall they initially sent a letter (3 July) that was rejected instead of a more formal brief. The suggestion of mootness was the more formal brief. It was responded to by the petitioners with another brief, so the issue has been briefed and they will proceed to oral argument to resolve the issue.

"be prepared to discuss it" does not seem vague. It seems very likely that they will ask questions about the issue and they want to ensure that both sides are prepared for those questions.

Occam · Oct 7, 2019

This also feels, to me, like the conservatives on the court laying the ground work for a more substantial (broader?) decision, and making sure that nobody can complain about whether the mootness issue was given enough oxygen in advance of a ruling that will have the lefties screeching. At least, that's my day-dreamy interpretation while I'm still on a carb high from the sandwich I just ate.

CharlieFoxtrot · Oct 7, 2019

frogman68 said:
Justice Thomas was absent. Did he get to call his vote in??? Or did one of the liberals vote for this hmmmm

Out due to "unspecified illness."

Decoy · Oct 7, 2019

frogman68 said:
Justice Thomas was absent. Did he get to call his vote in??? Or did one of the liberals vote for this hmmmm

Twitter is saying that he is resting at home while recovering from the Flu.

BeoBill · Oct 7, 2019

ddestruel said:
By not declaring the case moot from the city's the motion to dismiss then in theory SCOTUS could render a ruling as why it is or is not moot, clearing up some of that judicial review with voluntary cessation territory in conjunction with whatever or however they rule with the NYSRPA case and proper judicial review practices with regard to 2nd amendment litigation.

That will be very interesting if they go after biting two apples instead of one.

Given the antics and various insults thrown at the SCOTUS, one can only speculate as to how this might play out...

Occam said:
This also feels, to me, like the conservatives on the court laying the ground work for a more substantial (broader?) decision, and making sure that nobody can complain about whether the mootness issue was given enough oxygen in advance of a ruling that will have the lefties screeching. At least, that's my day-dreamy interpretation while I'm still on a carb high from the sandwich I just ate.

Don't forget the Congressional threat of recent vintage. I don't think that went down well at all, and the bad taste remains to this day and beyond. That may be the deciding factor behind the announcement, IMO. :innocent0

BeoBill · Oct 7, 2019

CharlieFoxtrot said:
Out due to "unspecified illness."

He got a wreath from Hillary?

daNattyFatty · Oct 7, 2019

Decoy said:
Twitter is saying that he is resting at home while recovering from the Flu.

For someone who isn’t a spring chicken, that ain’t good. Here’s for a speedy recovery!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Occam · Oct 7, 2019

daNattyFatty said:
For someone who isn’t a spring chicken, that ain’t good. Here’s for a speedy recovery!

He's at home. That's a very good sign - not tubed up at a hospital. I don't think he does RBG's workout regime, though. He won't last as long as she has. Hopefully Trump's got a very specific, very ready to go pack of nominees ready, and McConnell is ready to usher them through the process post haste in case of trouble.

frogman68 · Oct 7, 2019

Did Justice Thomas vote or did a liberal finally read the Constitution?

Supreme Court Takes Major NRA Second Amendment Case from New York

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

MSI EM

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Member

dont be a dumbass

товарищ плачевная

Ultimate Member

Not Even ONE Indictment

,

Ultimate Member

Crank in the Third Row

Crank in the Third Row

Ultimate Member

Not Even ONE Indictment

товарищ плачевная

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics