08-15-2019, 01:36 PM
(08-15-2019, 01:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.
The case is not moot only if the case that went up to SCOTUS is broad enough to include the laws that are left standing after such machinations. Again, I'd have to read the filings and more detail at each level to get a full understanding of that. My original understanding was that the case was in regards to a new-ish law that was then reversed by the state/city. That being said, I haven't been paying a ton of attention to this, so my knowledge of it is only what is gleaned from my brief interactions, here.
(08-15-2019, 01:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.
Oh, threats of court packing absolutely are a threat to our systems and very undemocratic. There is a reason FDR was shot down by all sides for it.
"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
