08-15-2019, 12:13 PM
(08-15-2019, 11:51 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.
I don't disagree with anything you say here. All I am saying that if things are done as they typically are in our judiciary system, then this should be dismissed for mootness. If they continue to hear the case, then that is taking on the role of an activist judiciary, something that should not happen the way our system is set up.
I should add that I find it shortsighted to favor judicial activism for a cause you support over how our government is intended to function. People knocking down the guardrails of our democracy, because that is what it is, in order to get their way is why we are in this mess.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
