Democratic Senators "Warn" SCOTUS

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-15-2019, 12:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Continuing to hear a case after it has been rendered moot is stepping outside of the bounds of judicial norms due to the implications of the case and as such it is judicial activism. When these norms are broken because they want to rule on the case, that is judicial activism. It further degrades the integrity of the judicial system. I understand the extreme lengths necessary to have a case heard, but that doesn't change things.

By not hearing the case, there is no rewarding of the defendants. The law has been stricken, everyone can see what is going on. It isn't surprising that the defendants are playing politics because they are political entities. The courts, however, are not. SCOTUS is not supposed to play politics and hearing a case that is moot is doing just that.

All of this assumes not only that the case is now moot and that continuing to hear it would be "steeping out of bounds" as you put it.  IMO, and the plaintiffs, neither of these things are true.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/110978/20190801121009552_18-280%20NYSRPA%20suggestion%20of%20mootness%20opposition.pdf


For decades, the City of New York imposed numerous restrictions on law-abiding residents that effectively prohibited them from transporting their licensed handguns anywhere beyond seven in-city ranges. Five years ago, petitioners (three city
residents and an association representing handgun owners statewide) challenged that regime, insisting that the Second Amendment gives them a right to transport their licensed handguns to places where they can be lawfully possessed, like second homes, out-of-city ranges, and shooting competitions.

For five years, the City actively and successfully defended its regime, ultimately procuring a Second Circuit decision that eliminated meaningful protection for Second Amendment rights. Then this Court granted certiorari, and the City abruptly shifted gears, undertaking a series of extraordinary maneuvers designed to frustrate this Court’s review and obviate the City’s need even to explain itself in a merits brief.

The City’s efforts culminated in a revised regulation designed to loosen the City’s restrictions to the minimum degree necessary to render this litigation moot and a City-procured state law that actually grants the City unique authority to prevent nonresidents from transporting licensed handguns through the city.

Neither of those changes renders this controversy moot, and each vindicates this Court’s well-grounded skepticism of voluntary cessation of unlawful conduct generally and of “postcertiorari maneuvers designed to insulate a decision from review by this Court” in particular.

The City’s begrudging revisions to its restrictive transport ban reflect the City’s unwavering view that the ability to transport a licensed handgun is a matter of government-conferred privilege, rather than a constitutional right. As a consequence, the revised regulations demand continuous and uninterrupted transport (forbidding a stop at a gas station or coffee shop en route), require written permission before a handgun can be taken to a gunsmith, and preclude transport to a summer rental house.

If the City had suggested the same revisions as a proposed injunction after a loss on the merits, petitioners would have objected to them as inconsistent with their just reaffirmed Second Amendment rights. The (in)adequacy of such miserly accommodations presents no less a live controversy when the City unilaterally imposes them as a supposed mooting event.

Equally problematic, the City’s revised rules, unlike a judicial declaration that the longstanding rules are and always have been unconstitutional, do nothing to prevent the City or another jurisdiction from using past non-compliance as a basis for denying future licenses.

The City plainly has fallen far short of making it “impossible for a court to grant ‘any effectual relief whatever’” to petitioners should they prevail before this Court.

The state legislation that the City procured also fails to eliminate a live controversy between the parties. The state law leaves many disputed questions—from the propriety of coffee stops to the scope of places where handgun use is “lawfully authorized”—to local officials.

It thus does nothing to eliminate the ongoing controversy over issues such as the adequacy of the City’s rule demanding continuous and uninterrupted transport, or the possibility of localities attributing continuing consequences to past violations.

Even more troubling, the state law contains a massive carve-out that allows the City— and the City alone—to prohibit non-residents from transporting a licensed handguninto or across the city.

Thus, the City’s claim that it “no longer has any stake in whether the Constitution requires localities to allow people to transport licensed handguns to second homes or firing ranges outside of municipal borders,” SM.1, is demonstrably wrong.

Of course, even if (contrary to fact) the new laws were so unequivocally accommodating of petitioners’ constitutional claims so as to eliminate any immediate controversy, the unilateral and voluntary nature of the changes, along with their undisguised purpose to frustrate this Court’s review, would justify injunctive relief to foreclose the possibility that the City could return to its ways. Especially given the City’s ongoing regulation of constitutionally protected conduct through its licensing regime, the possibility of “effectual” injunctive relief is obvious.

Indeed, the carve-out in the state law confirms that the City maintains an undiminished interest in prohibiting the transport of lawful handguns and has yielded only when and to the extent necessary to attempt to foreclose this Court’s plenary review.

In short, everything about this case confirms not only that a live controversy remains, but the wisdom of this Court’s admonition that post-grant maneuvers designed to defeat the Court’s exercise of discretionary review “must be viewed with a critical eye.”


The most critical parts, IMO, are bolded and underlined.  While you may disagree, it is clearly not without precedent to continue to hear the matter and it's certainly not "steeping out of bounds" as you put it.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I'm a bit surprised that no one has really addressed the veiled threat in the message from Stolen Valor Man and his compatriots. How is such a threat not an attack on a cornerstone of our democracy, the three separate, but equal, branches of government?

[Belsnickel]

(08-15-2019, 01:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: All of this assumes not only that the case is now moot and that continuing to hear it would be "steeping out of bounds" as you put it.  IMO, and the plaintiffs, neither of these things are true.

The most critical parts, IMO, are bolded and underlined.  While you may disagree, it is clearly not without precedent to continue to hear the matter and it's certainly not "steeping out of bounds" as you put it.  

I would have to read the original filing and all to get a better grasp of what the ruling is that has been brought to SCOTUS. SCOTUS is an appellate court, not a court of original jurisdiction. If the facts of the case have changed significantly enough that the case is no longer an appeal, then it is still outside the norms for them to hear it. It would need to be kicked back to a lower court to be reheard with the new facts. SCOTUS is not permitted to take up cases that have not gone through the process (another form of judicial activism if they did).

I am on the side of the plaintiffs with regards to this case; the laws in New York re: firearms are far more restrictive that what should pass constitutional muster. I just want everything to be done above board because of the broad implications involved in a ruling like this and because of the decline in our system that has been occurring over the years. If there is any question as to the way SCOTUS acted with this case, then it will become the left's Roe as they have seen the long game the Republicans played with that and the courts.

[Belsnickel]

(08-15-2019, 01:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm a bit surprised that no one has really addressed the veiled threat in the message from Stolen Valor Man and his compatriots. How is such a threat not an attack on a cornerstone of our democracy, the three separate, but equal, branches of government?

Was that the court packing threat or something else?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-15-2019, 01:25 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I would have to read the original filing and all to get a better grasp of what the ruling is that has been brought to SCOTUS. SCOTUS is an appellate court, not a court of original jurisdiction. If the facts of the case have changed significantly enough that the case is no longer an appeal, then it is still outside the norms for them to hear it. It would need to be kicked back to a lower court to be reheard with the new facts. SCOTUS is not permitted to take up cases that have not gone through the process (another form of judicial activism if they did).

I am on the side of the plaintiffs with regards to this case; the laws in New York re: firearms are far more restrictive that what should pass constitutional muster. I just want everything to be done above board because of the broad implications involved in a ruling like this and because of the decline in our system that has been occurring over the years. If there is any question as to the way SCOTUS acted with this case, then it will become the left's Roe as they have seen the long game the Republicans played with that and the courts.

A well reasoned response.  In your second paragraph you do tend to lend credence to the plaintiff's argument that the case is not moot despite the machinations of New York City and state.

(08-15-2019, 01:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Was that the court packing threat or something else?

Yes.  The idea of court packing has certainly been addressed and I was very pleased to see universal (at least here) condemnation of the idea.  I'm speaking more about the very fact that such a threat was made.  As I said in my original, and subsequent posts, it has a very mafia tactics vibe to it.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-15-2019, 01:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm a bit surprised that no one has really addressed the veiled threat in the message from Stolen Valor Man and his compatriots.  How is such a threat not an attack on a cornerstone of our democracy, the three separate, but equal, branches of government?

Edit your quote so that Trump said it and you'll get a LOT of strong reactions. 

[Belsnickel]

(08-15-2019, 01:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A well reasoned response.  In your second paragraph you do tend to lend credence to the plaintiff's argument that the case is not moot despite the machinations of New York City and state.

The case is not moot only if the case that went up to SCOTUS is broad enough to include the laws that are left standing after such machinations. Again, I'd have to read the filings and more detail at each level to get a full understanding of that. My original understanding was that the case was in regards to a new-ish law that was then reversed by the state/city. That being said, I haven't been paying a ton of attention to this, so my knowledge of it is only what is gleaned from my brief interactions, here.

(08-15-2019, 01:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes.  The idea of court packing has certainly been addressed and I was very pleased to see universal (at least here) condemnation of the idea.  I'm speaking more about the very fact that such a threat was made.  As I said in my original, and subsequent posts, it has a very mafia tactics vibe to it.

Oh, threats of court packing absolutely are a threat to our systems and very undemocratic. There is a reason FDR was shot down by all sides for it.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-15-2019, 01:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: All of this assumes not only that the case is now moot and that continuing to hear it would be "steeping out of bounds" as you put it.  IMO, and the plaintiffs, neither of these things are true.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/110978/20190801121009552_18-280%20NYSRPA%20suggestion%20of%20mootness%20opposition.pdf


For decades, the City of New York imposed numerous restrictions on law-abiding residents that effectively prohibited them from transporting their licensed handguns anywhere beyond seven in-city ranges. Five years ago, petitioners (three city
residents and an association representing handgun owners statewide) challenged that regime, insisting that the Second Amendment gives them a right to transport their licensed handguns to places where they can be lawfully possessed, like second homes, out-of-city ranges, and shooting competitions.

For five years, the City actively and successfully defended its regime, ultimately procuring a Second Circuit decision that eliminated meaningful protection for Second Amendment rights. Then this Court granted certiorari, and the City abruptly shifted gears, undertaking a series of extraordinary maneuvers designed to frustrate this Court’s review and obviate the City’s need even to explain itself in a merits brief.

The City’s efforts culminated in a revised regulation designed to loosen the City’s restrictions to the minimum degree necessary to render this litigation moot and a City-procured state law that actually grants the City unique authority to prevent nonresidents from transporting licensed handguns through the city.

Neither of those changes renders this controversy moot, and each vindicates this Court’s well-grounded skepticism of voluntary cessation of unlawful conduct generally and of “postcertiorari maneuvers designed to insulate a decision from review by this Court” in particular.

The City’s begrudging revisions to its restrictive transport ban reflect the City’s unwavering view that the ability to transport a licensed handgun is a matter of government-conferred privilege, rather than a constitutional right. As a consequence, the revised regulations demand continuous and uninterrupted transport (forbidding a stop at a gas station or coffee shop en route), require written permission before a handgun can be taken to a gunsmith, and preclude transport to a summer rental house.

If the City had suggested the same revisions as a proposed injunction after a loss on the merits, petitioners would have objected to them as inconsistent with their just reaffirmed Second Amendment rights. The (in)adequacy of such miserly accommodations presents no less a live controversy when the City unilaterally imposes them as a supposed mooting event.

Equally problematic, the City’s revised rules, unlike a judicial declaration that the longstanding rules are and always have been unconstitutional, do nothing to prevent the City or another jurisdiction from using past non-compliance as a basis for denying future licenses.

The City plainly has fallen far short of making it “impossible for a court to grant ‘any effectual relief whatever’” to petitioners should they prevail before this Court.

The state legislation that the City procured also fails to eliminate a live controversy between the parties. The state law leaves many disputed questions—from the propriety of coffee stops to the scope of places where handgun use is “lawfully authorized”—to local officials.

It thus does nothing to eliminate the ongoing controversy over issues such as the adequacy of the City’s rule demanding continuous and uninterrupted transport, or the possibility of localities attributing continuing consequences to past violations.

Even more troubling, the state law contains a massive carve-out that allows the City— and the City alone—to prohibit non-residents from transporting a licensed handguninto or across the city.

Thus, the City’s claim that it “no longer has any stake in whether the Constitution requires localities to allow people to transport licensed handguns to second homes or firing ranges outside of municipal borders,” SM.1, is demonstrably wrong.

Of course, even if (contrary to fact) the new laws were so unequivocally accommodating of petitioners’ constitutional claims so as to eliminate any immediate controversy, the unilateral and voluntary nature of the changes, along with their undisguised purpose to frustrate this Court’s review, would justify injunctive relief to foreclose the possibility that the City could return to its ways. Especially given the City’s ongoing regulation of constitutionally protected conduct through its licensing regime, the possibility of “effectual” injunctive relief is obvious.

Indeed, the carve-out in the state law confirms that the City maintains an undiminished interest in prohibiting the transport of lawful handguns and has yielded only when and to the extent necessary to attempt to foreclose this Court’s plenary review.

In short, everything about this case confirms not only that a live controversy remains, but the wisdom of this Court’s admonition that post-grant maneuvers designed to defeat the Court’s exercise of discretionary review “must be viewed with a critical eye.”


The most critical parts, IMO, are bolded and underlined.  While you may disagree, it is clearly not without precedent to continue to hear the matter and it's certainly not "steeping out of bounds" as you put it.  

They make a good argument.  Apparently I'm easily swayed here.  

[Belsnickel]

(08-15-2019, 01:36 PM)michaelsean Wrote: They make a good argument.  Apparently I'm easily swayed here.  

There is just a lot going on in this situation.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-15-2019, 01:36 PM)michaelsean Wrote: They make a good argument.  Apparently I'm easily swayed here.  

That's what I was thinking. After reading that, I was like, how could anyone argue against SSF on this?

[GMDino]

(08-15-2019, 01:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm a bit surprised that no one has really addressed the veiled threat in the message from Stolen Valor Man and his compatriots.  How is such a threat not an attack on a cornerstone of our democracy, the three separate, but equal, branches of government?

I responded to the "threat" in the second post in the tread.

I was told I was wrong.

Ok, I was told we just see it differently.

And we've all said we're against the court packing so I don't know if we supposed to get the torches and pitchforks now or wait until the parade date is set? Blumenthal was one person who signed. I know you have a personal hate for him so what else is there to add?

(08-15-2019, 01:30 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Edit your quote so that Trump said it and you'll get a LOT of strong reactions. 

If Trump would have said you can guarantee there was zero thought put into it. We have to give sane people a little bit of room for doubt.

[Belsnickel]

(08-15-2019, 01:40 PM)PhilHos Wrote: That's what I was thinking. After reading that, I was like, how could anyone argue against SSF on this?

Because I like being a contrarian.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-15-2019, 01:41 PM)GMDino Wrote: If Trump would have said you can guarantee there was zero thought put into it.  We have to give sane people a little bit of room for doubt.  

Uhh, no we don't. If someone says something outrageous, stupid, and/or anti-democratic, then they should be called out on it. I know you're not used to calling out people who aren't Donald Trump, but Trump is not the only one in American politics who says things that he should be called out on.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-15-2019, 01:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Because I like being a contrarian.

Don't ever change. 

[GMDino]

(08-15-2019, 01:45 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Uhh, no we don't. If someone says something outrageous, stupid, and/or anti-democratic, then they should be called out on it. I know you're not used to calling out people who aren't Donald Trump, but Trump is not the only one in American politics who says things that he should be called out on.

I said I was against the idea and why.

I don't have to call out someone over an awful idea (now portrayed at anti-democratic not just dumb and a bad idea) like I do with DJT who strings bad ideas together like a kid making a macaroni necklace in kindergarten.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-15-2019, 01:41 PM)GMDino Wrote: I responded to the "threat" in the second post in the tread.  

I was told I was wrong.    

Ok, I was told we just see it differently.   

With respect, you really didn't.  You said you were against the concept of court packing, which is good, but you didn't address the fact that five Senators issued a thinly veiled threat to one of our three branches of government.

Quote:And we've all said we're against the court packing so I don't know if we supposed to get the torches and pitchforks now or wait until the parade date is set?  Blumenthal was one person who signed.  I know you have a personal hate for him so what else is there to add?

The more to add would be utter condemnation of threats made to one of the cornerstones of our Federal government.

Quote:If Trump would have said you can guarantee there was zero thought put into it.  We have to give sane people a little bit of room for doubt.  

Your argument here actually works against you.  If a sane person makes such a statement then you can count on their having given the matter a lot of thought before making it.  Having done so they made the threat anyways.  It's like being mad at a five year old and a thirty-five year old for the same thing.  The thirty-five year old will, rightfully, be subject to far more scrutiny and suffer far greater consequences for their actions.  Phil is perfectly correct here, there would be complete bedlam in the media if Trump made the same statement to the SCOTUS.

[GMDino]

(08-15-2019, 02:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: With respect, you really didn't.  You said you were against the concept of court packing, which is good, but you didn't address the fact that five Senators issued a thinly veiled threat to one of our three branches of government.



The more to add would be utter condemnation of threats made to one of the cornerstones of our Federal government.



Your argument here actually works against you.  If a sane person makes such a statement then you can count on their having given the matter a lot of thought before making it.  Having done so they made the threat anyways.  It's like being mad at a five year old and a thirty-five year old for the same thing.  The thirty-five year old will, rightfully, be subject to far more scrutiny and suffer far greater consequences for their actions.  Phil is perfectly correct here, there would be complete bedlam in the media if Trump made the same statement to the SCOTUS.

Well, again, Trump routinely makes insane proclamations.  That people keep trying to say he's crazy and should stop isn't that odd.  When someone makes one bad idea public they get told they are wrong and we move along.  If they repeat the process the condemnation gets louder.  Or should.

Steve King didn't get censored for the first racist thing he said.  Or the 100th.  But eventually people had enough.

That you call it a "thinly veiled threat" is your take on it.  Tinted by that fact the Blumenthal is attached to it.

As so you said, we see it (the "threat") differently.  You care a great deal about this subject and so you go after it harder than something you care less about.  Nothing wrong with that at all.  We all do it when we discuss subjects near and dear to us.  And then we can't see why others aren't as outraged as we are.  Human nature.

If one of these people tires to force through their idea or continues to make make "threats" that become more real there will be greater outrage probably.  IMHO.

[NATI BENGALS]

(08-15-2019, 01:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm a bit surprised that no one has really addressed the veiled threat in the message from Stolen Valor Man and his compatriots.  How is such a threat not an attack on a cornerstone of our democracy, the three separate, but equal, branches of government?

Was the threat in your original post? I don't see anything alarming in there. 

Have you noticed the court packing going on with our current POTUS? Just ramming through nominees with huge question marks that traditionally would be disqualifying. There is major damage being done to a system that was already broken. 

Did you notice how Moscow Mitch blocked our last POTUS from filling a SCOTUS seat?

I wanted term limits imposed on judges of all levels long before trump started loading the judicial system with turds. Screw this lifetime appointment shit. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-15-2019, 02:54 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Was the threat in your original post? I don't see anything alarming in there.

I'm saddened to hear that. 

Quote:Have you noticed the court packing going on with our current POTUS? Just ramming through nominees with huge question marks that traditionally would be disqualifying. There is major damage being done to a system that was already broken. 

That's not court packing, it's filing judicial vacancies.  You can disagree with those being used to fill said vacancies, but that doesn't make it court packing.

Quote:Did you notice how Moscow Mitch blocked our last POTUS from filling a SCOTUS seat?

Yeah, I think I read something about that once.

Quote:I wanted term limits imposed on judges of all levels long before trump started loading the judicial system with turds. Screw this lifetime appointment shit. 

A separate issue.  One definitely worthy of discussion, but a separate issue nonetheless.

[NATI BENGALS]

(08-15-2019, 02:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm saddened to hear that. 



That's not court packing, it's filing judicial vacancies.  You can disagree with those being used to fill said vacancies, but that doesn't make it court packing.



Yeah, I think I read something about that once.


A separate issue.  One definitely worthy of discussion, but a separate issue nonetheless.

I guess I don't know what "court packing" means then. 

What concerns you about someone saying the court is not "doing well" and suggesting the need to become less political? Sounds like you just don't like the messenger.