Supreme Court lets us down again -- again

[smithers599]

Sorry, I did not realize this had been addressed in Politics & News: https://www.arizonashooting.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=7522

https://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/964819/16

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a challenge to New York City restrictions on handgun owners transporting their firearms outside the home, meaning the justices for now will not be wading into the battle over the scope of the right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment.
The justices threw out the dispute at hand because the measure that was challenged by individual gun owners and the state's National Rifle Association affiliate was rolled back by the city last July, rendering the case moot. The city had asked the Supreme Court not to hear the matter. The justices went ahead and heard arguments on Dec. 2 but ultimately agreed with the city.

Put not your faith in the Supreme Court. They are the ones who said a black man has no rights which a white man is bound to respect, and distributing anti-draft leaflets is the same thing as falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre, so the leaflet-distributor goes to jail. And there is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about arresting US citizens, confiscating their property, and locking them in remote “internment camps” if their parents or grandparents were born in a country with which the US is at war.

I have little respect for the Supreme Court. They do not have a good track record as champions of rights. Mostly, they have been bagmen and enablers for their paymasters in DC.

 

[smithers599]

They had the choice to hear the case, and three justices (Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas) voted to hear the case. Kavanaugh, Roberts, and the four liberals voted not to let the case proceed. Maybe Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas misread it, but I don't think so. Rather, I think that Kavanaugh and Roberts let us down. As somebody noted on the other thread (in the Politics forum), the last minute repeal is a tactic, an invitation for cities and states to pass unconstitutional laws, then after seven years of working through the courts, repealing those laws just as they are about to be ruled unconstitutional, then passing new unconstitutional laws and starting the process over again. They can go on forever that way.

 

[smithers599]

See Alito's dissent (Thomas and Gorsuch concurring). If you disagree with them, fine, but it is not accurate to say that the Supreme Court had no choice but to find the case moot, and that they did the only thing they could do. Clearly they had a choice; there was another thing they could do, and Alito describes it clearly.

The Court vacates the judgment of the Court of Appeals, apparently on the ground that this case is now moot. (Other than mootness, no other basis for vacating comes to mind, and therefore I proceed on that assumption.) And if that is the reason for what the Court has done, the Court is wrong. This case is not moot. Article III, §2 of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts to “Cases” and “Controversies,” and as a result, we may not “‘decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before [us].’” Chafin, 568 U. S., at 172. Nor may we advise “‘what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.’” Ibid. This means that the dispute between the parties in a case must remain alive until its ultimate disposition. If a live controversy ceases to exist—i.e., if a case becomes moot—then we have no jurisdiction to proceed. But in order for this to happen, a case must really be dead, and as noted, that occurs only “‘when it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.’” Ibid. (quoting Knox v. Service Employees, 567 U. S. 298, 307 (2012)). “‘[A]s long as the parties have a concrete interest, however small, in the outcome of the litigation, the case is not moot.’” Chafin, 568 U. S., at 172 (quoting Knox, 567 U. S., at 307–308). Thus, to establish mootness, a “demanding standard” must be met. Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (slip op., at 6). We have been particularly wary of attempts by parties to manufacture mootness in order to evade review. See Knox, 567 U. S., at 307; accord, Northeastern Fla. Chapter, Associated Gen. Contractors of America v. Jacksonville, 508 U. S. 656, 661 (1993). And it is black-letter law that we have a “virtually unflagging” obligation to exercise our jurisdiction. Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U. S. 800, 817 (1976). In this case, the amended City ordinance and the new State law gave petitioners most of what they sought in their complaint, but the new laws did not give them complete relief. It is entirely possible for them to obtain more relief,
and therefore this case is not moot. This is so for the following reasons. A

Will the city of NY re-establish that particular law? No. Without any limits/guidance set by the SCt, will they continue to dream up new laws that they know or suspect are unconstitutional? Ya think?

 

[mtptwo]

Better cases are coming, assuming Robberts doesn't screw us over.

RGB needs to just die in bed or something. She is slowing progress.

 

[Flash]

My take is that the city backed off to PREVENT the court from issuing a ruling. A chickenshit move, but quite effective. The SCOTUS let nobody down here. They had the case vacated, essentially.

Exactly and SCOTUS did right not to hear it after this happened. Study how our government works and become an informed voter.

 

[smithers599]

I guess those idiots Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch need to study how our government works and become informed Supreme Court justices.

 

[smithers599]

They rescinded the law, thus vacating the case against it.

The complainants received complete relief. The court does not hear cases that are moot where there is no relief to be granted. They do not deal in hypotheticals like, "Well, they might bring the law back" or "What if other states or cities do this in the future." It doesn't work like that.

The cases you identified in your quote do not describe where the court heard a case that was vacated by the challenged law being struck from the code. There was no longer any controversy. Done.

This means that the dispute between the parties in a case must remain alive until its ultimate disposition. If a live controversy ceases to exist—i.e., if a case becomes moot—then we have no jurisdiction to proceed. But in order for this to happen, a case must really be dead, and as noted, that occurs only “‘when it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.’”

Justice Alito shot down whatever argument you think he was making right there. No jurisdiction.

Continuing Alito's opinion -- the part following what you quoted:

In this case, the amended City ordinance and the new State law gave petitioners most of what they sought in their complaint, but the new laws did not give them complete relief. It is entirely possible for them to obtain more relief, and therefore this case is not moot. This is so for the following reasons.

The argument I "think" Alito was making when he said "this case is not moot," is that "this case is not moot." Seems like a reasonable interpretation, no? Do we agree that when Alito wrote "this case is not moot" the argument he was making is "this case is not moot"?

I get it; you disagree with Alito. No problem with that. What you can't do is say that the justices had "no alternative" because clearly, three of them did. You can't quote Alito's opinion to demonstrate that the plaintiffs obtained "complete relief," when in the next breath he says "they did not get complete relief, and here are the reasons why."

So just go ahead and say "I disagree with the minority analysis and I agree with the majority analysis."

 

[smithers599]

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN23M1Y0?fbclid=IwAR3cYJs3GDVEzJa7FttCP8jetGD_9RCmepEWchd5pOWA5j4eYyrAkQH8BPo

Mon Jun 15, 2020 / 10:40 AM EDT
U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear gun rights cases
Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung
Reuters/Jonathan Ernst
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a series of new cases seeking to expand gun rights.
The court rejected a total of 10 different cases that had piled up at the court in recent months. Two justices, conservatives Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh, said they would have heard one of the cases, a dispute from New Jersey over that state's concealed carry gun permits.
In the New Jersey case, the justices left in place a lower court ruling that threw out a lawsuit challenging the state's law mandating that people who want to carry handguns in public must show they have a special reason before they can get a permit.

"This Court would almost certainly review the constitutionality of a law requiring citizens to establish a justifiable need before exercising their free speech rights. And it seems highly unlikely that the Court would allow a State to enforce a law requiring a woman to provide a justifiable need before seeking an abortion," Thomas wrote, in an opinion joined by Kavanaugh. "But today, faced with a petition challenging just such a restriction on citizens’ Second Amendment rights, the Court simply looks the other way."
Justice Thomas (dissenting)

 

[smithers599]

National Review article:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/06/why-did-the-roberts-court-punt-on-ten-second-amendment-cases/

Summary: the four pro-rights justices were not sure Roberts would be on the right side. Roberts is the weak Conservative In Name Only. But we knew that.

Come on, Ginsburg! Get with it!

 

[delta6]

...........
Summary: the four pro-rights justices were not sure Roberts would be on the right side. Roberts is the weak Conservative In Name Only. But we knew that...............

Correct...We really do not want this sitting Supreme Court to hear any 2nd Amendment cases. It is a death wish.

 

[pneuby]

RBG will be gone soon. Sotomayor will be, too. Health issues.

Re: "Notorious", not soon enough, LOL.

Do tell? Whassup with Thee Wise Latina?