10-08-2019, 03:16 PM
(10-08-2019, 12:59 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It should be noted that there is still a potential for the case to be rendered moot in oral arguments. In case anyone was too lazy to go and read the document.
Yes, I thought I made that clear, apologies if not. However, given the court's decision to hear the mootness argument at the same time as oral arguments for the case I'd say they have an uphill climb ahead of them on the mootness argument.
I don't really understand the opposition to the court hearing the case, especially as presented in the plaintiff's argument I posted above. To get a case heard by SCOTUS involves years of court hearing and appeals. For a defendant to wait until the SCOTUS agrees to hear the case and then change the offending law is such a blatant gaming of the system that I honestly question the legal acumen and morals of anyone endorsing it. What would prevent the same law from being reenacted a few months or a year later, starting the whole process over? Also, SCOTUS decisions are important for the precedent they set that will apply to laws and instances not immediately covered or apparent by the existing case. Clearly this is a constitutional decision that needs to be addressed. I, for one, am looking forward to exactly that.
