08-15-2019, 11:51 AM
(08-15-2019, 09:49 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: They aren't wrong that it would appear politically motivated for the court to continue to hear the case after it has been rendered moot. It would be the action of an activist judiciary. That doesn't excuse the threat, just pointing out that the reason for not being happy with SCOTUS is pretty well founded.
Just my two cents.
I couldn't disagree with you more. They fought this case tooth and nail before SCOTUS agreed to hear it. Changing the law and claiming mootness is a blatant and underhanded attempt to prevent the case from being heard as they clearly know they will lose. Additionally, what would prevent them from later reenacting a similar, or the exact same law, in a years time and starting the process all over again? I'm a bit disappointed that you're buying this shortsighted argument.
