08-15-2019, 01:29 PM
(08-15-2019, 01:25 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I would have to read the original filing and all to get a better grasp of what the ruling is that has been brought to SCOTUS. SCOTUS is an appellate court, not a court of original jurisdiction. If the facts of the case have changed significantly enough that the case is no longer an appeal, then it is still outside the norms for them to hear it. It would need to be kicked back to a lower court to be reheard with the new facts. SCOTUS is not permitted to take up cases that have not gone through the process (another form of judicial activism if they did).
I am on the side of the plaintiffs with regards to this case; the laws in New York re: firearms are far more restrictive that what should pass constitutional muster. I just want everything to be done above board because of the broad implications involved in a ruling like this and because of the decline in our system that has been occurring over the years. If there is any question as to the way SCOTUS acted with this case, then it will become the left's Roe as they have seen the long game the Republicans played with that and the courts.
A well reasoned response. In your second paragraph you do tend to lend credence to the plaintiff's argument that the case is not moot despite the machinations of New York City and state.
(08-15-2019, 01:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Was that the court packing threat or something else?
Yes. The idea of court packing has certainly been addressed and I was very pleased to see universal (at least here) condemnation of the idea. I'm speaking more about the very fact that such a threat was made. As I said in my original, and subsequent posts, it has a very mafia tactics vibe to it.
