Interesting article on the upcoming New York SCOTUS case

[Aim1]

Interesting.

From the article:

“In fairness, there is a doctrine known as “voluntary cessation,” which allows courts to hold onto a case after the defendant voluntarily quits whatever behavior led to them being sued in the first place. It’s a sensible doctrine, because it prevents defendants from endlessly avoiding litigation by doing something illegal, and then stopping their illegal behavior for just long enough for a court to dismiss any lawsuits against them.”








https://news.google.com/articles/CA...CoGCAow5YQBMJIaMIZF?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US:en

 

[Texas10mm]

It seems the Left is extremely worried about this case being in front of the Supreme Court. I wonder why that is? Could it be that "gun control" is a house of cards built on shifting sand?

 

[Dunross]

"Control the currency and the courts. Let the rabble have the rest."

Yes, I think they very much do not want certain kinds of cases to come before the court now.

Not that there is ever any guarantee as to what the Supremes will do.

 

[illinoisburt]

Consider how much time and effort is put into getting other issues in front of the courts to establish them as a personal right that the court recognizes. These people understand full well what it means to have civil rights. They absolutely don't want gun supporters to reverse the tables and use the courts in support of gun rights in the manner other groups push issues like marriage or the environment. These people definitely understand that power to sink their cause like they cudgle others.

 

[Aim1]

I just hope SCOTUS doesn’t drop this case and then not take another important gun case for another decade.

 

[Medic Mike]

I just hope SCOTUS doesn’t drop this case and then not take another important gun case for another decade.

They have Rogers v. Grewal from NJ pending review for Certiorari. They have had that one in a holding pattern for a while, best guesses are because of the NYC case. The NJ case is challenging “justifiable need”/“may issue” vs “shall issue”.

 

[Aim1]

They have Rogers v. Grewal from NJ pending review for Certiorari. They have had that one in a holding pattern for a while, best guesses are because of the NYC case. The NJ case is challenging “justifiable need”/“may issue” vs “shall issue”.

The shall issue/may issue is a big one.

 

[Labguy47]

Yes the bandaid fix that gets immediately reversed by the next law isn’t gonna cut it with the SC anymore. People have rights and I for one wanna see the NJ case decision.