08-15-2019, 12:29 PM
(08-15-2019, 12:13 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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.
Except it's not judicial activism for the following reason; SCOTUS decisions have implications far beyond the original ruling. Through judicial precedent they guide lower court decisions on similar matters. Thus, making a ruling on this law, rendered moot by shadiness or no, will affect rulings on all future laws of the same stripe. Additionally, you're not acknowledging the extreme lengths necessary to get a case heard by SCOTUS. The state and city of New York are the only ones playing politics here. By laying down their arms at the final hour they are acknowledging that they not only passed a blatantly unconstitutional law, but vigorously defended such a law for years before the SCOTUS agreed to hear it. Such blatant and naked gaming of the system should not be allowed or rewarded. I wholeheartedly disagree that this is an example of judicial activism and it's not because I support the cause of the plaintiff.
