Euler Posted November 18, 2019 at 10:12 PM Share Posted November 18, 2019 at 10:12 PM Not quite. ScotusBlog ... the federal government filed a short brief in which it agreed with the challengers that the case is not moot. The government reasoned that there is still a live controversy because the challengers could seek money damages from the city, but it rejected the challengers' contention that the case is not moot because the rules remain problematic even after the city's changes. The challengers' objections to the new rules "would establish a new controversy regarding those provisions," the government acknowledged, but they "do not establish a live controversy regarding the City's original transport ban." The state and the association will file their responses by Wednesday, November 20. ... Personally, I'm on board with a brief the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty filed a while ago in support of neither party, but opposed to mootness. If NYC (a large, powerful, well-funded organization) is allowed to play a shell game with restrictions on individual liberties, it invites governments everywhere to abuse their authority over any individual anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted November 19, 2019 at 02:36 PM Share Posted November 19, 2019 at 02:36 PM The court invited the DOJ to present its opinion in a letter on mootness. The DOJ responded that the case should not be mooted.That makes me wonder if DOJ/SG Francisco will just lay down and say "2A should be subject to strict scrutiny." Sent from my LM-G710VM using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talonap Posted November 19, 2019 at 04:55 PM Share Posted November 19, 2019 at 04:55 PM Not quite. ScotusBlog... the federal government filed a short brief in which it agreed with the challengers that the case is not moot. The government reasoned that there is still a live controversy because the challengers could seek money damages from the city, but it rejected the challengers' contention that the case is not moot because the rules remain problematic even after the city's changes. The challengers' objections to the new rules "would establish a new controversy regarding those provisions," the government acknowledged, but they "do not establish a live controversy regarding the City's original transport ban." The state and the association will file their responses by Wednesday, November 20....Personally, I'm on board with a brief the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty filed a while ago in support of neither party, but opposed to mootness. If NYC (a large, powerful, well-funded organization) is allowed to play a shell game with restrictions on individual liberties, it invites governments everywhere to abuse their authority over any individual anywhere. It seems that these days, governments don't need an invitation ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted November 20, 2019 at 08:29 PM Share Posted November 20, 2019 at 08:29 PM ... Personally, I'm on board with a brief the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty filed a while ago in support of neither party, but opposed to mootness. If NYC (a large, powerful, well-funded organization) is allowed to play a shell game with restrictions on individual liberties, it invites governments everywhere to abuse their authority over any individual anywhere. It seems that these days, governments don't need an invitation ... Maybe not, but at least the courts aren't yet issuing such invitations as a matter of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted November 20, 2019 at 08:37 PM Share Posted November 20, 2019 at 08:37 PM NYSRPA and NYC have filed letters in response to the DOJ's. Not surprisingly, NYSRPA agrees that they could file a monetary damage claim in the future, but they disagree that no ruling is required on the previous transport ban. Also not surprisingly, NYC disagrees that NYSRPA could ever file a future monetary damage claim as part of the current case, since they have not done so already, but agrees that the case is otherwise moot, as well. I think it would be a bad move on NYSRPA's part to append a damage claim to this case. This case should be all about the constitutional issue and nothing else. It was originally the DOJ that brought up the issue of money. I'd hate to see the oral arguments get bogged down in debates over monetary damages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILhunter Posted November 21, 2019 at 12:50 PM Share Posted November 21, 2019 at 12:50 PM NYSRPA and NYC have filed letters in response to the DOJ's. Not surprisingly, NYSRPA agrees that they could file a monetary damage claim in the future, but they disagree that no ruling is required on the previous transport ban. Also not surprisingly, NYC disagrees that NYSRPA could ever file a future monetary damage claim as part of the current case, since they have not done so already, but agrees that the case is otherwise moot, as well. I think it would be a bad move on NYSRPA's part to append a damage claim to this case. This case should be all about the constitutional issue and nothing else. It was originally the DOJ that brought up the issue of money. I'd hate to see the oral arguments get bogged down in debates over monetary damages. It was probably a tactical error not to ask for $ in the first place. Monetary damages are never mooted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTHunter Posted November 23, 2019 at 03:49 AM Share Posted November 23, 2019 at 03:49 AM If asking for "monetary damages", shouldn't the least that they ask for is compensation for their legal expenses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoadyRunner Posted November 30, 2019 at 03:30 AM Share Posted November 30, 2019 at 03:30 AM So, oral arguments are on Monday. I know the transcripts will be published at the end of the day - and the audio at the end of the week. I think they are the only options - unless anyone knows of any other sources... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chislinger Posted December 2, 2019 at 02:57 PM Share Posted December 2, 2019 at 02:57 PM In 2 minutes the hearing begins! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRJ Posted December 2, 2019 at 04:54 PM Share Posted December 2, 2019 at 04:54 PM Is there any play by play write up as this happens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Fife Posted December 2, 2019 at 05:29 PM Share Posted December 2, 2019 at 05:29 PM https://twitter.com/AHoweBlogger/status/1201535684194033664?s=09 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lou Posted December 2, 2019 at 05:57 PM Share Posted December 2, 2019 at 05:57 PM https://twitter.com/AHoweBlogger/status/1201535684194033664?s=09 After an hour of oral arguments, seemed possible (although not certain) that #SCOTUS will dismiss NYC 2nd Amendment case as moot after city changed its rule. Justice Brett Kavanaugh did not speak, but Chief Justice John Roberts seemed like he could be a 5th vote for moot.8:16 AM - 2 Dec 2019 https://www.facebook.com/100011088912909/videos/962864870759801/?t=2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted December 2, 2019 at 06:10 PM Share Posted December 2, 2019 at 06:10 PM https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/daycall/DayCall_12-2-19.pdf Those who spoke for each side today. Waiting for audio to be posted.https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio/2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2A4Cook Posted December 2, 2019 at 06:17 PM Share Posted December 2, 2019 at 06:17 PM Yes, encourage Dem cities and states to stomp all over their residents' constitutional rights by enacting illegal laws and enforcing them until a lawsuit eventually reaches the steps of the SCOTUS. Make a ruling to stop this Dem scumbaggery!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted December 2, 2019 at 06:21 PM Share Posted December 2, 2019 at 06:21 PM I will be away from the net this afternoon, if someone sees the audio pop up, please post the link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colt-45 Posted December 2, 2019 at 07:01 PM Share Posted December 2, 2019 at 07:01 PM Hope all goes our way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chislinger Posted December 2, 2019 at 07:11 PM Share Posted December 2, 2019 at 07:11 PM SCOTUSblog summary of today's proceeding: https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/12/argument-analysis-justices-focus-on-mootness-in-challenge-to-now-repealed-new-york-city-gun-rule/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmagloo Posted December 2, 2019 at 07:55 PM Share Posted December 2, 2019 at 07:55 PM I'm not getting it. If the SCOTUS declined to allow the case to be dropped over mootness this summer, and confirmed the case to proceed to arguments today, why is mootness coming up again? Why is it more and less moot since summer? Clearly this is going to go straight along party lines, but Roberts better not let us down, again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2A4Cook Posted December 2, 2019 at 08:03 PM Share Posted December 2, 2019 at 08:03 PM You mean "I'll call a fine a tax to save Obamacare" Roberts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted December 2, 2019 at 08:50 PM Share Posted December 2, 2019 at 08:50 PM I'm not getting it. If the SCOTUS declined to allow the case to be dropped over mootness this summer, and confirmed the case to proceed to arguments today, why is mootness coming up again? Why is it more and less moot since summer? Clearly this is going to go straight along party lines, but Roberts better not let us down, again. Because there were no oral arguments on the motion for mootness over the summer. The SC declined to dismiss the case based on briefs alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chislinger Posted December 2, 2019 at 09:10 PM Share Posted December 2, 2019 at 09:10 PM I don't see how it's moot, since the circuit court decision is still binding case law unless overturned by SCOTUS. But I'm not a lawyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chislinger Posted December 2, 2019 at 09:43 PM Share Posted December 2, 2019 at 09:43 PM Here's a link to today's transcript: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/18-280_m64o.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colt-45 Posted December 4, 2019 at 02:39 PM Share Posted December 4, 2019 at 02:39 PM So it sounds like they my rule it moot or is there a case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmagloo Posted December 4, 2019 at 02:56 PM Share Posted December 4, 2019 at 02:56 PM Well, after reading that transcript, it's a tough call. It is pretty clear that there are two very distinct views on the merits. I think it's going to come down to, are we going to keep the 5th Conservative Judge on our side? Roberts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted December 4, 2019 at 07:53 PM Share Posted December 4, 2019 at 07:53 PM I don't see how it's moot, since the circuit court decision is still binding case law unless overturned by SCOTUS. But I'm not a lawyer.If it's mooted a Musingwear order is given by SCOTUS which will vacate all lower court opinions on the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted December 4, 2019 at 07:55 PM Share Posted December 4, 2019 at 07:55 PM Well, after reading that transcript, it's a tough call. It is pretty clear that there are two very distinct views on the merits. I think it's going to come down to, are we going to keep the 5th Conservative Judge on our side? Roberts.Likely yes, he'll be the deciding vote. It was pretty clear that the old law had no support of being constitutional from either the lefties on the court or the city's attorney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted December 4, 2019 at 08:00 PM Share Posted December 4, 2019 at 08:00 PM NYSRPA and NYC have filed letters in response to the DOJ's. Not surprisingly, NYSRPA agrees that they could file a monetary damage claim in the future, but they disagree that no ruling is required on the previous transport ban. Also not surprisingly, NYC disagrees that NYSRPA could ever file a future monetary damage claim as part of the current case, since they have not done so already, but agrees that the case is otherwise moot, as well. I think it would be a bad move on NYSRPA's part to append a damage claim to this case. This case should be all about the constitutional issue and nothing else. It was originally the DOJ that brought up the issue of money. I'd hate to see the oral arguments get bogged down in debates over monetary damages. It was probably a tactical error not to ask for $ in the first place. Monetary damages are never mooted. I also see them typically ask that an order is made by the court declaring the statute in question unconstitutional. No way around that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8x57 Posted December 5, 2019 at 03:35 AM Share Posted December 5, 2019 at 03:35 AM All these media outlets speculating that SCOTUS will moot the case. However, after reading the transcripts, all that discussion was from the 4 liberal justices. Gorsuch and Alito were clearly in favor of ruling on the merits and wanted to hear the petitioners thoughts on standard of review and "text, history, and tradition". It's obvious from past opinions that Kavanaugh and Thomas are right there with them. Roberts didn't say much, asking a minor technicality follow up on a mootness question. It was hard to get a read on his position. I could see this going either way. Either Roberts was purposefully being hard to read and we're going to get the text history tradition opinion written by Thomas that we're all hoping for or Roberts is going to decide he can avoid picking sides and avoid further controversy and "heal the Court" by going with the liberals to call it moot. That really doesn't make sense though because SCOTUS went out of their way to grant cert on this one (it's not like Obamacare or a controversial whitehouse policy that is unavoidable). Thomas, among others, would be livid to watch Roberts go this far with it and then decide to abandon ship. Then again they don't call him John Benedict Arnold Roberts for nothing.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanC Posted December 5, 2019 at 04:11 AM Share Posted December 5, 2019 at 04:11 AM Didn't Easy-E call Ice Cube Benedict Arnold or was it Dr. Dre?...sounds like someone (Bloomberg) is whispering in some of the judges ears. Conversation about mootness being the way. Can't loosen grip on gun laws. It's for the children.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynn Posted December 5, 2019 at 07:38 AM Share Posted December 5, 2019 at 07:38 AM That really doesn't make sense though because SCOTUS went out of their way to grant cert on this one That is still my opinion as well. The blunt reality is that many lower courts are simply ignoring Heller/McDonald and I still believe this case was granted cert so the SCOTUS could white glove those lower courts and put them on notice that it's a right that they can no longer deny with judicial reviews bellow those of other enumerated and even non-enumerated civil rights. The truth is the SCOTUS wants the lower courts to do the grunt work, they really only want to give instructions and guidance to the lower courts, but when the lower courts choose to ignore that guidance and instruction, it's only a matter of time before the SCOTUS lays down the law in very clear context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.