Quantcast

Transcript of Oral arguments from Supreme Court today

Discussion in 'Legal' started by fastbolt, Dec 2, 2019.

  1. fastbolt

    fastbolt Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,862
    Location:
    Within the lightning
  2. alsaqr

    alsaqr Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Messages:
    4,136
    Location:
    South Western, OK
    Thanks for your post.
     
    Styx likes this.
  3. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    6,423
    Location:
    Virginia
    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.
     
  4. edwardware

    edwardware Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    Messages:
    1,810
    And here I was thinking that's what the legislature was for. Learn something every day. . .
     
    km101 likes this.
  5. roscoe

    roscoe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    2,607
    Location:
    NV
    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.
     
    Phaedrus/69 likes this.
  6. ilbob

    ilbob Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    15,290
    Location:
    Illinois
    I have a hard time getting past the mootness arguement myself. It seems like they got what they asked for.
     
    alsaqr likes this.
  7. JTHunter

    JTHunter Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2010
    Messages:
    2,043
    Location:
    Southwestern Illinois
    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.
     
    Slamfire and DoubleMag like this.
  8. Jim Watson

    Jim Watson Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    25,727
    That is the reason the case is not moot. One legislative session can't bind the next.
    Shame the lawyers can't tell that. Or don't want to admit it.
     
    DoubleMag likes this.
  9. armoredman

    armoredman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    17,404
    Location:
    proud to be in AZ
    Not to mention the overt threats the Democrats made to the Court if they DON'T rule it moot...
     
  10. Slamfire

    Slamfire Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,130
    Location:
    Alabama
    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.
     
    boom boom likes this.
  11. boom boom
    • Contributing Member

    boom boom Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,553
    Location:
    GA
    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.
     
    AlexanderA, Slamfire and GEM like this.
  12. GEM

    GEM Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    6,263
    Location:
    TX
    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.
     
    JTHunter, Phaedrus/69 and boom boom like this.
  13. BSA1

    BSA1 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    7,153
    Location:
    West of the Big Muddy, East of the Rockies and Nor
    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.
     
  14. boom boom
    • Contributing Member

    boom boom Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,553
    Location:
    GA
    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.
     
  15. Zendude
    • Contributing Member

    Zendude Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2015
    Messages:
    1,140
    Location:
    Texas
    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.
     
  16. ilbob

    ilbob Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    15,290
    Location:
    Illinois
    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.
     
  17. GEM

    GEM Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    6,263
    Location:
    TX
    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.
     
    Zendude likes this.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice