10-08-2019, 04:11 PM
(10-08-2019, 03:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.
Actually this happens all the time. When a law is struck down the law is changed to get rid of the part that was found improper.
(10-08-2019, 03:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What would prevent the same law from being reenacted a few months or a year later, starting the whole process over?
The same law could not be reenacted a few months from now because part of it has already been found improper by the court.
The SCOTUS has a long standing policy against "advisory opinions". They don't rule on laws that do not exist. If they go against this policy it will appear they are becoming more partisan.
