Democratic Senators "Warn" SCOTUS

[fredtoast]

(10-08-2019, 03:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   For a defendant to wait until the SCOTUS agrees to hear the case and then change the offending law is such a blatant gaming of the system that I honestly question the legal acumen and morals of anyone endorsing it. 

Actually this happens all the time.  When a law is struck down the law is changed to get rid of the part that was found improper.

(10-08-2019, 03:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What would prevent the same law from being reenacted a few months or a year later, starting the whole process over? 

The same law could not be reenacted a few months from now because part of it has already been found improper by the court.

The SCOTUS has a long standing policy against "advisory opinions".  They don't rule on laws that do not exist.  If they go against this policy it will appear they are becoming more partisan.

[fredtoast]

(10-08-2019, 03:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   Allowing them to game the system as they intended would be a far more damaging precedent in my opinion.

How are they "gaming the system" if they changed the law to fit the court ruling?

That is exactly how the system is supposed to work.

[Belsnickel]

(10-08-2019, 03:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The alternative is allowing a clearly unscrupulous party to game the system.  As you just pointed out, the path for a case to get to SCOTUS is long and difficult.  If the defendant chose to wait until the SCOTUS decides to hear a case to finally alter the law that prompted it then the blame rests solely on them.  Additionally, as described above, there is still legitimate grounds for grievance on the part of the plaintiff.  NYC played a disingenuous and highly partisan game with their citizen's Constitutional rights and now they're being held to account.  Allowing them to game the system as they intended would be a far more damaging precedent in my opinion.

I tend to err on the side of more power to state/local governments and more power to legislative authorities over judicial ones. I like the people to hold the power which means lower levels of government and democratically elected bodies. This would be why I am not in favor of a precedent that expands the authority of SCOTUS over a potential precedent, though a faulty one since it really doesn't benefit them, for state legislatures.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-08-2019, 04:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I tend to err on the side of more power to state/local governments and more power to legislative authorities over judicial ones. I like the people to hold the power which means lower levels of government and democratically elected bodies. This would be why I am not in favor of a precedent that expands the authority of SCOTUS over a potential precedent, though a faulty one since it really doesn't benefit them, for state legislatures.

I can understand and accept the reasoning.  I would counter that this is such a brazen attempt by New York City and State to subvert the court process that rewarding them by accepting it is far more dangerous.  As stated, they could re-enact the same law in six months, restarting the whole court process, which takes years (in this case over three).  Also, as previously argued in the plaintiff's brief, there are fundamental issues that NYC and State have not rendered moot which directly correlate to the plaintiff's case.

If NYC and State actually cared about rendering this case moot they could have done it years ago.  They didn't because they were confident they would win and that SCOTUS would not take up the case.  The gambled and lost and it's time for them to pay the price.

[fredtoast]

(10-08-2019, 07:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   I would counter that this is such a brazen attempt by New York City and State to subvert the court process that rewarding them by accepting it is far more dangerous. 

All they did was change the law to accommodate the court ruling.  That is what always happens.  Anyone claiming that that is "subverting the court process" really does not understand the process.

(10-08-2019, 07:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As stated, they could re-enact the same law in six months, restarting the whole court process, which takes years (in this case over three). 

No, they can not re-enact a law that has been stricken down by the court.

[fredtoast]

(10-08-2019, 07:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  Also, as previously argued in the plaintiff's brief, there are fundamental issues that NYC and State have not rendered moot which directly correlate to the plaintiff's case.

The Supreme court does not rule on "issues".  It can only rule on specific laws.

It could be that parts of the law, even after being changed, are still part of the challenge before the court.  In that case it would not be moot.