Democratic Senators "Warn" SCOTUS

[Belsnickel]

(08-15-2019, 12:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.

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.