Transcript of Oral arguments from Supreme Court today

Status
Not open for further replies.
First of all, it's a mistake to draw conclusions as to the outcome of a SC case from the oral arguments. That said, I read the transcript, and it's clear to me that the four liberal Justices are eager to declare the case moot and drop it. That means they're afraid of what the other five might rule on the substance. Obviously CJ Roberts is the key. His motive is institutional -- he doesn't want the Court to get too far out of sync with public opinion. If I were to bet, I'd say he votes for mootness.
 
And here I was thinking that's what the legislature was for. Learn something every day. . .

Most of the court's so-called landmark decisions dragged behind the trends in general public opinion, but they did formalize the social transitions, and force the minority resisting the change to legally accommodate. Rarely do you see the court make a truly socially transformative decision, simply based on constitutional interpretation. That is probably why you never see justices impeached.
 
I have a hard time getting past the mootness arguement myself. It seems like they got what they asked for.
 
The problem is, that with the way NY "changed" the law, it could be undone by a change in the administration down the line. Then New Yorkers would be back behind the 8-ball again.

For the gun banners it is a game of Hokey Pokey:

You put your right foot in
You take your right foot out
You put your right foot in
And you shake it all about
You do the hokey pokey
And you turn yourself around
That's what it's all about

It is quite a deliberate game of creating restrictions and waving them whenever the Supremes might rule against them.
 
The one slender bit of hope came from Justices Alito and Gorsuch, they contend that the absence of clear indicators in the NYC policy of when a person could stop their "journey" which is similar to the way NJ punishes folks using FOPA to transport firearms across their borders does constitute a non-moot issue. In addition, they support allowing the plaintiffs to amend their complaint if necessary to examine whether the policy has damaged members of the NY State Rifle assoc by revocation of permits in the past or prevented them from traveling in the past to their detriment. It is possible that SCOTUS might send the case back to the trial court for reexamination under such a case.

One thing that is probably holding Dred Justice Roberts in check is the potential that a couple more justices might be appointed by Trump in the future, he has to remain in good standing with the conservative bloc to retain any power whatsoever. However, if that threat is removed or alleviated by a new Dem. president, then Roberts appears quite content to let the 2A wither on the vine.

Thus, he might throw half a bone to Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas, and probably Kavanaugh by not outright killing the case by mootness but remanding to a lower court to examine the issues of damages and perhaps the vagueness issue of the new policy which would make the case non-moot.
 
Thus, the hope for another golden moment when restrictive gun laws will be wiped out by SCOTUS passes in the wind. I wonder if it was worth taken a fairly trivial issue (sorry, folks in NYC - my old home town) to SCOTUS to fail and add another brick to the cultural wall of not supporting gun rights. Heller was the peak that was hoped to lead to more and it didn't. Maybe I will be surprised and the decision will be to end gun laws! Whoopee.

If you cannot trust Roberts (quite reasonable view of Boom Boom), then trying to bring a decisive cases against state bans on weapons or carry restrictions ( more significant than the NYC issue), is fraught with danger.

That was that the thought by some on Heller, it could have easily gone the other way and wipe out the right even to have a gun at home for self-defense. As it is, the compromise with Kennedy has the aspects of a poison bill. Al the legal weeds of damages, mootness, it was going to mandate strict scrutiny, etc. were really just smoke. There is not the will in 5 justices to support a strong RKBA. There have been 300 local restrictions passed since Heller. The Remington case is argued by some to now encourage harassing law suit attempt across the country. State bans increase and measures like sanctuaries make gun friendly areas get all excited but don't stop the tide. Hidden guns are hidden guns. Useless and that increases the deterioration of positive gun culture.

The demographics are against a strategy of getting every old conservative white guy to the polls. That cannot last forever.

Said this all before.
 
A well armed population is a danger to Government Institutions if they decide to challenge the Government and remove those that hold those offices by force of arms if necessary.

The Supreme Court is a Government Institution that could be in danger in such an event. For this reason alone makes me believe the Roberts will vote for mootness.

Dang depressing topic. Thank goodness it is Friday.
 
Dang depressing topic. Thank goodness it is Friday.

BSA,

I am not that depressed because the feeder courts are going to force Dred Justice Roberts to take cases that he does not like in the near future. The rule of 4 for certiorari means that Thomas (avowed 2A supporter), Gorsuch and Alito (likewise), and based on prior records on the DC Circuit, Kavanaugh support greater protections for individual right to Keep and Bear Arms. Ginsberg, like it or not, is on her way out and Breyer might also retire. Sotomayor is also not in really good health with diabetes. On the right, only Thomas has some health issues mentioned. Get an additional 2A friendly judge appointed by Trump, Roberts essentially becomes irrelevant on a number of issues and my guess is that he will try to go with the flow in that circumstance. He ain't no hero. Chief Justices that try to fight the majority get ignored and shunted aside (see Chief Justice Vinson as an example). Burger more or less retired when a similar refusal of his fellow justices to tolerate his devious behavior resulted in his neutering as Chief in the 1980's.
 
I think this case won’t do much for pro 2A rights. It’s not broad enough. It will only (maybe) serve to clarify what rights a person has under an “at home” permit in New York.
Should have waited for a case regarding gun bans, unfair ammo tax, or restrictions on how much ammo a person can own, restrictions on carry permits, or something similar.
 
I think there is a good chance the court uses this case to spank lower courts that have essentially ignored Heller and McDonald IF it gets past the mootness issue.

My observations are that the supreme court wants the lower courts to do most of the dirty work and there is a lot of bad law that has a chance of being undone if the lower courts start taking Heller seriously.
 
That statement is always the case. When a gun case goes south, it is because the great wisdom is to set up the great final case of golden victory. The lower courts won't take Heller seriously even if you declare strict scrumptiousness. The courts have their bias against firearms and will come up with the rationale for the bans under any standard declared.

Also, Heller did not speak to the issue of weapons type bans as being unconstitutional in a clear manner. Nor did it speak to carry outside of the home in a clear manner.

At the time, folks who saw the problems in Heller, were told Scalia (a wiley old bird, maybe an extremely stable legal genius) was setting a trap for a later decision that would enhance gun rights. Then the other justices wouldn't take a case and he and Thomas dissented. Surprise, genius.

I don't buy the secret wonder plans. It's just cognitive dissonance to avoid seeing a negative outcome for what it is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top