1. If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

  2. Dismiss Notice

US Supreme Court OT 2018

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Comm2A, Jan 10, 2019.

  1. Knuckle Dragger

    Knuckle Dragger NES Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2008
    Messages:
    7,035
    Likes Received:
    3,185
    Location:
    My forest stronghold

  2. BigGreen2000

    BigGreen2000

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2019
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    The 413
    So does that mean that the case moves forward?
     
  3. mlaboss

    mlaboss NES Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2011
    Messages:
    4,041
    Likes Received:
    1,487
    Cap'n Mike likes this.
  4. Knuckle Dragger

    Knuckle Dragger NES Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2008
    Messages:
    7,035
    Likes Received:
    3,185
    Location:
    My forest stronghold
    For now. NYC will try against once they're regulatory change and the change to state law go into effect.

    Aside from the merits issue, I think this will be interesting in terms of how the court deals with an obvious attempt to evade review. Judges, and especially Supreme Court justices, don't like being f'ed with. Even the justices likely to side with NYC on the merits won't tolerate this BS.
     
    crispnipz, Waher, Boston4567 and 2 others like this.
  5. doxdsgn

    doxdsgn NES Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2013
    Messages:
    254
    Likes Received:
    83
    crispnipz and Cap'n Mike like this.
  6. Cap'n Mike

    Cap'n Mike NES Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2016
    Messages:
    350
    Likes Received:
    399
    Location:
    Mass
    Really looking forward to August 5, 2019 to see if NY submits merits arguments in their response brief.
     
    crispnipz likes this.
  7. CatSnoutSoup

    CatSnoutSoup NES Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2015
    Messages:
    2,638
    Likes Received:
    4,354
    Location:
    Westgardminsterham MA
    I hoping we see a case like U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez’s ruling of California’s magazine ban as unconstitutional make its way to SCOTUS someday.

    :emoji_tiger:
     
  8. crispnipz

    crispnipz

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2017
    Messages:
    281
    Likes Received:
    307
    Location:
    Medford
    giphy-downsized-large.gif
     
    Cap'n Mike likes this.
  9. swatgig

    swatgig NES Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2011
    Messages:
    4,764
    Likes Received:
    3,645
    Location:
    Chained together with 999 of my associates at the
    So today New York filed a "Suggestion of Mootness" http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...22151524926_18-280 Suggestion of Mootness.pdf

    as well as a motion for an extension of time http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...o extend time to file brief on the merits.pdf
     
  10. VetteGirlMA

    VetteGirlMA NES Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,514
    Likes Received:
    2,079
    Location:
    western mass
    I fail to see how there couldn't be a constitutional issue in the New York case even though the law is changed. Let's say that SCOTUS agrees the case is moot and then it goes away. The next day the New York legislature and city can immediately institute the old policy essentially invalidating the reason for claiming it isn't moot. They could simply go back and forth like this for years on end with essentially no change in the law.
     
    CTC, Waher, Cap'n Mike and 2 others like this.
  11. xtry51

    xtry51

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Messages:
    19,727
    Likes Received:
    7,548
    Location:
    NH (CT Escapee)
  12. Knuckle Dragger

    Knuckle Dragger NES Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2008
    Messages:
    7,035
    Likes Received:
    3,185
    Location:
    My forest stronghold
    It's not so much, "don't make us lose this case" as it is "there's no need for us to ruin it for everyone". Everytown and the Giffords center were primary drivers behind the legislative change that supposedly makes this issue moot. While New York is more than capable of digging itself a big hole, the big guns in the anti-gun movement are terrified about any case getting to this Supreme Court.
     
    drgrant, Jason Flare, Waher and 7 others like this.
  13. rocket500

    rocket500 NES Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Messages:
    2,780
    Likes Received:
    671
    Let’s hope the Court decides to end this BS in NY. Would send a strong message about infringing on the 2A.
     
  14. swatgig

    swatgig NES Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2011
    Messages:
    4,764
    Likes Received:
    3,645
    Location:
    Chained together with 999 of my associates at the
  15. Boston4567

    Boston4567 NES Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2018
    Messages:
    535
    Likes Received:
    460
    Location:
    Merrimack Valley
    Paul Clement for the win. I figured the case would end up mooted, but the way NYC has approached this in trying to force SCOTUS's hand on the mootness proceedings by refusing to follow the court's schedule in filing a merits brief is guaranteed to piss off the justices.

    "This Court should reject respondents’ latest request. As petitioners will explain more fully in their response to respondents’ Suggestion, petitioners certainly do not agree that this case is moot or should be removed from the Court’s calendar. That contested issue can and will be briefed separately from the merits and provides no excuse for delaying the merits briefing. The mootness issues can and should be considered by the Court in the ordinary course, whether that is when the Court returns from recess or alongside the merits briefing and argument. In the meantime, respondents have had more than enough time to prepare their defense of the challenged provisions—provisions that they have successfully defended in both the district court and the Second Circuit and continue to insist are constitutional. There is no reason to give them even more time, or for this Court to rush its consideration of their mootness arguments, simply because respondents apparently would prefer not to defend in this Court a regime that they imposed on petitioners and other New York residents for more than a decade."​
     
    Fritz the Cat likes this.
  16. swatgig

    swatgig NES Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2011
    Messages:
    4,764
    Likes Received:
    3,645
    Location:
    Chained together with 999 of my associates at the
    Aaaaaaand SCOTUS told NYC to pound sand.
     
  17. Cap'n Mike

    Cap'n Mike NES Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2016
    Messages:
    350
    Likes Received:
    399
    Location:
    Mass
    Thats Awesome.
    New York now only has 5 business days to cobble together merits arguments in their response brief.
    Perfect.
     
  18. firestorm

    firestorm

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    Messages:
    2,254
    Likes Received:
    517
    Location:
    Mass
    New york's response has been filed. From my non lawyer understanding they basically are arguing "This case is moot and should be thrown out because the law changed. But as an aside the law was totally constitutional and the people who say it wasn't are jerks who don't understand that new york is just different and should be able to do whatever they want."

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...416324_NYSRPA v CNY Brief for Respondents.pdf
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2019
    jpk likes this.
  19. Editor

    Editor NES Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2013
    Messages:
    565
    Likes Received:
    124
    Location:
    Worcester County, MA
    The link provided is not New York's response. It is the PETITIONER'S (Pistol & Rifle Association) response to the REPONDENTS (City of New York) suggestion of mootness.
     
    firestorm likes this.
  20. firestorm

    firestorm

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    Messages:
    2,254
    Likes Received:
    517
    Location:
    Mass

    Good call, I grabbed the wrong link. Fixed now.
     
  21. crispnipz

    crispnipz

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2017
    Messages:
    281
    Likes Received:
    307
    Location:
    Medford
    lol.png

    *New York legal team sweating intensifies*
     
    Horrible, Boston4567 and Cap'n Mike like this.
  22. Waher

    Waher NES Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2014
    Messages:
    7,349
    Likes Received:
    5,207
    Location:
    BG&RA, BR&PC
    https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...416324_NYSRPA v CNY Brief for Respondents.pdf

    Is it just me, or would a judge find this statement offensive for a multitude of reasons including a condensing tone?

    The offending phrases:
    "In an abundance of caution" "requires the City to do what Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement is designed to avoid"
    "But to avoid any possibility of confusion" "petitioners are entirely free to engage in all of the conduct they have requested in this lawsuit"

    The statement "defendant has no desire (or even ability) to reenact" is also blatantly piss on your leg and say it is raining false.
     
    Bonesinium, Boston4567 and Cap'n Mike like this.
  23. VetteGirlMA

    VetteGirlMA NES Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,514
    Likes Received:
    2,079
    Location:
    western mass
    I guarantee you that liberals are pooping in their pants right now. If they lose this one it's a good opportunity to open the flood gates on the rest of their idiocy.
     
    CAR and Cap'n Mike like this.
  24. Cap'n Mike

    Cap'n Mike NES Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2016
    Messages:
    350
    Likes Received:
    399
    Location:
    Mass
    I pray that SCOTUS uses this case to do to Bearing Arms, what Heller did to Keeping Arms.
     
    xtry51, CAR and MachineHead like this.
  25. crispnipz

    crispnipz

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2017
    Messages:
    281
    Likes Received:
    307
    Location:
    Medford
    Senate Dems deliver stunning warning to Supreme Court: ‘Heal’ or face restructuring

    Who the deuce do these people think they are?
     
    Waher, wiryone1 and xtry51 like this.
  26. xtry51

    xtry51

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Messages:
    19,727
    Likes Received:
    7,548
    Location:
    NH (CT Escapee)
    Wow. Good luck with that Rofl.
     
    wiryone1 likes this.
  27. drgrant

    drgrant Moderator NES Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    65,558
    Likes Received:
    21,141
    IMHO this is part of the reason why krispy kreme pardoned a couple people who wandered into NJ with handguns (like that lady from Philadelphia) and why that lady at the 9-11 Memorial got let off the hook.... because several of them have been the textbook definition of sympathetic plaintiffs....

    I'm sure in Krispy Kremes case some of it was political posturing but I would bet anything "a call got received" over the issue, too...

    -Mike
     
  28. mlaboss

    mlaboss NES Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2011
    Messages:
    4,041
    Likes Received:
    1,487
    Waher, CatSnoutSoup and drgrant like this.
  29. xtry51

    xtry51

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Messages:
    19,727
    Likes Received:
    7,548
    Location:
    NH (CT Escapee)
    Could you imagine if Trump now tried to nominate 6 more justices to head them off? Just to see the response it generated? Just a simple single tweet:

    "I agree with the democrats (insert all the names from that article here) that the court has been sick for sometime and needs to heal from its constant erosion of rights, so I am sending 6 new candidates to be confirmed and bring us back to a better place."

    Then say nothing else and submit 6 judges immediately.

    Sit back, watch heads explode.
     
    T-Unit likes this.
  30. mlaboss

    mlaboss NES Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2011
    Messages:
    4,041
    Likes Received:
    1,487
    These landmark guns rights SCOTUS cases (Heller, McDonald, and now NYSRPA) all share a common theme: restrictions that are so onerous or arbitrary and capricious that even people who are a bit anti-gun are like "whoa, really?" I've explained the NYSRPA case to people who are not gun people, and even they are like "Wait, they can't bring their gun anywhere? Like, not even to another state completely unloaded in a locked case in the trunk of their car? Yeah, that's not reasonable."

    Basically, laws that strain the definition of "common sense" gun control way beyond the point that even casual gun control advocates agree with. It's only the hardest of the hardcore gun controllers that think these sorts of laws are a good idea. And, in the end, they're shooting themselves in the foot because we get such great rulings out of them.
     

Share This Page