Democratic Senators "Warn" SCOTUS

[Belsnickel]

(10-08-2019, 03:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.

You did, but I was distracted by funny stuff on YouTube and it didn't register.

(10-08-2019, 03:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.

My issue with it is that hearing a moot case is the court expanding its own authority. The rules regarding what the court can take up keep its power limited. SCOTUS can't just reach down and grab a case it wants to hear; it needs to go through all of the channels of appeal before it is brought to them as the final step. If a decision is handed out on a moot case then you are setting a judicial precedent for future courts that expands their ability to hear cases that are moot simply because the majority of the court wants to take it on.

I don't at all disagree that the questions in this case are important and need to be reviewed, but the SCOTUS hearing a moot case is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.