|
National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#761
|
||||
|
||||
The Court has published the schedule for oral arguments in November: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_ar...vember2019.pdf
NYSRPA is not listed.
__________________
WTB: Magazines for S&W M&P 9c |
#763
|
|||
|
|||
NYSRPA has filed its response letter: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...e%20letter.pdf
|
#764
|
|||
|
|||
IANAL but my understaidng is...
NY got itself in trouble with this obviously unconstitutional law. They kept on winning in their own liberal courts, and figured all was going to be ok because SCOTUS wouldn't grant cert. Then, the unthinkable happened and now potentially all of NY's restrictive laws are in jeopardy. Now they are trying to wriggle out of this situation by saying, "comeon guys, we were just joking, we didn't mean it, we're all friends right?" But SCOTUS aren't fools.
__________________
"Weakness is provocative." Senator Tom Cotton, president in 2024 Victoria "Tori" Rose Smith's life mattered. |
#765
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#767
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#768
|
||||
|
||||
Ehh. I can speculate either way. In the absence of any other information regarding the Court's reasons, it just is what it is. Neither good nor bad.
__________________
WTB: Magazines for S&W M&P 9c |
#769
|
|||
|
|||
Maybe, Maybe not. Only the court knows. Its certainly bad in the sense that its still in limbo and thus several CA cases are in limbo along with it but it doesn't mean that the court is going to favor with NYC either.
|
#770
|
|||
|
|||
New York City must have annoyed the court again, because the clerk just rejected their letter from last week. They also rejected NYSRPA's, but I assume that's because the letter it's responding to is gone.
You can see the latest entries on the case's page: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....ic/18-280.html Last edited by FirearmFino; 07-08-2019 at 2:54 PM.. |
#771
|
|||
|
|||
NYC's desperation breeds contempt. I really think it is just posturing--I cannot imagine that, aside from the issue of the constitutionality of this particular rule or ordinance, is the core issue as to the proper standard of review of 2A cases.
The liberal circuits have bent over backwards to uphold laws under a standard of review that is "rational basis review in intermediate scrutiny clothing." Some have gone so far as to adopt a sliding scale analysis, giving little weight to laws that restrict activities that are "not important enough to insist upon" and that therefore are entitled to no deference as a right. Under their review standard, there is no violation unless the exercise of the right is completely foreclosed, i.e., "infringement" means "elimination" and anything less than that is not unconstitutional. Heller specifically rejected a sliding scale as appropriate, yet it has been adopted despite flying in the face of Heller. Obviously NYC does not want this history of victories to end, which it will, so it would seem that it would have every incentive to argue for a standard of review that gives great weight to regularly presented argument that "public safety" is a trump card for all challenges to these laws, even in the absence of any evidence demonstrating their efficacy. I will be shocked if it just punts, allowing the Court a free hand to fashion the appropriate analysis. |
#774
|
||||
|
||||
Oral arguments aren't necessary for per curiam decisions
"2A is BoR, treat it as such. Apply strict scrutiny then come back."
__________________
Hauoli Makahiki Hou ------- |
#776
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I am thinking it is good, since it takes the mooting issue off the table, but maybe other minds will have a different take on it. As frustrating as the lack of scheduling is, a little more time can give Ginsburg and Breyer more chances to retire. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * As much as it might be very hard to get 6 votes, it is not completely impossible. What if a liberal Justice has undisclosed health problems and knows DJT will appoint a strong conservative? Maybe it is better to get a ruling they won't like now rather than a ruling they really won't like in the near future. |
#777
|
||||
|
||||
IIRC, didn't Ginsburg recently mention that a few upcoming high profile cases were going to be 5-4, and even go so far as to describe one of them as a gun case? Why do I get this s***y feeling that Roberts is going wobbly, possibly getting wooed by NYC's mooting attempts...
|
#778
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#780
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
It's improper. But had this been an actual *****-slap, the court would have commented on it via an order of some type. Not accepting the letter for filing is a signal that the Court probably isn't going to moot the case. If they were going to do that (once the laws actually were passed and in place) they could have allowed the letter to be filed as a "repeat notice" of some type. Basically, the rejection of the letter is a rejection of the argument. As for orals, I don't think we'll see it on the docket until early next spring. The court is going to try to bury the decision (either way) in the election buffoonery over the summer and then run and hide like they usually do on issues of this level of importance.
__________________
Some random thoughts: Somebody's gotta be the mole so it might as well be me. Seems to be working so far. Evil doesn't only come in black. Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise! My Utubery |
#781
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Rule 21(2)(b): “A motion to dismiss as moot (or a suggestion of mootness) . . . shall be prepared as required by Rule 33.1, and 40 copies shall be filed[.]” |
#782
|
||||
|
||||
Hush. Don't let New York know.
__________________
"The most hated initials in America today ... TSA." Said by yours truly to an audience of nodding IRS employees. |
#783
|
||||
|
||||
Clement's reply letter pretty much summed up everything that was wrong with NY's request saying, basically, 'that's not how we do this'.
The court has procedures that must be followed, no shortcuts allowed. |
#784
|
||||
|
||||
What would be Christmas in July would be if SCOTUS aggregated a bunch of other 2nd Amendment cases out there with this case just to poke NY in the eye.
Or maybe I will win the lottery.
__________________
"The most hated initials in America today ... TSA." Said by yours truly to an audience of nodding IRS employees. |
#785
|
||||
|
||||
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/terms/ot2019/
Question: does the ordering of the unscheduled cases on the page, above, reflect anything more than random happenstance? NYSRPA is dead last...openly wondering if it will be the final case heard of the 2019 session. |
#786
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
My opinion is its a definite maybe...maybe. |
#787
|
||||
|
||||
I don't know if you can read this article. It might have a paywall.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/...ights-lawsuit/ Here's part of it for fair use commentary: "But there are certain situations where the courts won’t consider a case moot. After all, a government could keep violating people’s civil rights and avoid having its laws overturned by simply repealing the law just to enact it again later. This is precisely the type of situation New York City has manufactured: It’s backing off now, presumably planning to wait until the Supreme Court’s makeup is more favorable. Almost as soon as the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, the city reversed course on a law it has spent decades defending tooth and nail and requested that the Court delay the case to allow the city time to remove the rule. Originally, the city planned to have the police make a rule change — not even overturning the law. But the Court denied this request and, suspecting what the city was up to, several lawyers (including me) made sure, in amicus briefs, to address the city’s bad-faith attempt to escape the Court’s grasp." Perhaps SCOTUS must be Charlie Brown to Lucy with the football being jerked away every time SCOTUS takes up the case ... until it doesn't in which case Lucy wins for eleven months each year and once the court changes enough. THAT would not be Justice. THAT would mean any State could violate any Constitutional right for eleven months each year. In conclusion: "New York’s government knows its dealing is underhanded — but the city doesn’t care. It likely knows its laws were unconstitutional, too. The attempt to moot the lawsuit is, and always has been, a scam against the American people." I disagree with the conclusion. It's not a scam. It's a power grab, an attempt to steal the power of SCOTUS to deprive Americans of their rights.
__________________
"The most hated initials in America today ... TSA." Said by yours truly to an audience of nodding IRS employees. |
#788
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#789
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#790
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
* With breaks for breakfast, lunch, dinner, coffee, bathroom breaks, and Tucker Carlson.
__________________
"The most hated initials in America today ... TSA." Said by yours truly to an audience of nodding IRS employees. |
#791
|
|||
|
|||
The New York State bill has been delivered to the governor. He has 30 days to act on it, or the bill is vetoed.
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/a7752 |
#792
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
If/when signed, will the change of law still take effect on, IIRC, July 21st (next Sunday)?
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Last edited by Paladin; 07-16-2019 at 9:19 PM.. |
#793
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#794
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The change in state law takes place sometime after the governor signs the bill into law. Per post above, he has 30 days after the bill passed the legislature. That occurred on (under "ACTIONS" https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/a7752) Quote:
Quote:
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Last edited by Paladin; 07-16-2019 at 9:19 PM.. |
#795
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#797
|
|||
|
|||
The bill has been signed. It goes into effect immediately.
|
#798
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I wouldn't be surprised if it is not listed for Dec. If it is not listed for Jan, I will be slightly surprised. If it is not listed for Feb, I will be surprised and start thinking they're going per curiam (ala Caetano) and giving the dissenters time to write their opinions on this important case. JMO
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. |
#799
|
|||
|
|||
Speaking to the moodiness issue, even if this new state law goes into effect. The court should realize what a dangerous president this sets where a state could enact restrictive unconstitutional laws only to backpedal later on. No way this flies with them they should hear the case as it was originally filed.
The icing on the cake would be a ruling on appropriate scrutiny in constitutional cases going forward. I’m hoping for an early Christmas gift! |
#800
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|