quote:

Originally posted by werzjon229:

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
I read Whitehouse's brief. It reads like a flat out threat to the justices. Basically don't dare take this case and rule in a way we don't like or there will be consequences.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...1a456c003_story.html

Whitehouse, and the other Democrats, are sore losers. Elections have consequences, or so I've heard. If they want liberal justices, then they need to try to win the White House. Or they could try following the Constitution and focus on maintaining a federal government of limited powers that doesn't have such vast control over every part of its citizens' lives. Then the decisions at the Supreme Court might not be life and death fights all the time. But they want it both ways. They want the power over our lives and they want to control the courts to rubber stamp it or force it through when they can't do it through legislation.

I just read on the NYSRPA Facebook page that SCOTUS has scheduled oral arguments in the NYSRPA v NYC case for Monday, December 2, 2019.

quote:

Originally posted by SgtGold:
I just read on the NYSRPA Facebook page that SCOTUS has scheduled oral arguments in the NYSRPA v NYC case for Monday, December 2, 2019.

I have yet to review the opinion, yet SCOTUS just issued a Per Curiam ruling in this case.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/o...9pdf/18-280_ba7d.pdf

Well so much for Kavanaugh and his zeal for the second amendment.

That would fall into the big disappointment category.

I would have liked to see them take the case and slap the City and State HARD. In Heller and Chicago, they set the "rules" and the City and State just ignored them, figuring it would not matter if it never made it to SCOTUS. Well it did, and then they flip claiming it's moot cause they changed the rules. Sorry, they violated the rights of the claimants, and someone should pay for it.

From Alito, Forsuch and Thomas, with my emphasis. (Note there is a note Thomas did not join in Part IV-B.)

quote:

In the District Court and the Court of Appeals, the City vigorously and successfully defended the constitutionality of its ordinance, and the law was upheld based on what we are told is the framework for reviewing Second Amendment claims that has been uniformly adopted by the Courts of Appeals.

One might have thought that the City, having convinced the lower courts that its law was consistent with Heller, would have been willing to defend its victory in this Court. But once we granted certiorari, both the City and the State of New York sprang into action to prevent us from deciding this case. Although the City had previously insisted that its ordinance served important public safety purposes, our grant of review apparently led to an epiphany of sorts, and the City quickly changed its ordinance. And for good measure the State enacted a law making the old New York City ordinance illegal.

Then at the end...

quote:

In sum, the City’s travel restriction burdened the very right recognized in Heller. History provides no support for a restriction of this type. The City’s public safety arguments were weak on their face, were not substantiated in any way, and were accepted below with no serious probing. And once we granted review in this case, the City’s public safety concerns evaporated.

We are told that the mode of review in this case is representative of the way Heller has been treated in the lower courts. If that is true, there is cause for concern.

This case is not moot. The City violated petitioners’ Second Amendment right, and we should so hold. I would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to the District Court to provide appropriate relief. I therefore respectfully dissent.

So if I follow this correctly they rendered this "moot"!

Only Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas on the dissenting side.

F Me, what do we have to have a 8-1 "strict constitutionalist" majority for sanity to prevail?

Disappointing to say the least.

HK Ag

quote:

Originally posted by SgtGold:
Well so much for Kavanaugh and his zeal for the second amendment.

Why? He only concurred that the point was moot, which it probably was by the time the Supreme Court got it. His other comments make it quite clear where he falls in the Second Amendment argument.

And the case isn't OVER, the Plaintiff's WON, it was moot to argue the winning further. If there is any spanking, then hopefully it occurs in the attorney's fees area. The Plaintiff's should have sued for damages from the get go, NOT at the Supreme Court level. THAT was the mistake.

Only problem is, what stops the city from reversing the rules again tomorrow?

Mooting this case might turn out to be a blessing. There are several 2A cases as awaiting cert. Perhaps a different, cleaner case will bring a better result. Maybe with a new, more 2A friendly justice. Not that I'd wish for anything other than a retirement to bring that about.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be “restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.”

That sounds remarkably like a veiled threat to me. Whitehouse is trash so I wouldn't put it past him to attempt to threaten SCOTUS. Maybe the people of RI could pull their collective heads out of their collective asses and replace this buffoon before he further embarrasses them.

People that stupid can not be embarrassed.

Well this is somewhat disappointing. One would think that they just could have declared it moot in December which could have created an opportunity to be replaced by another Second Amendment case but that did not happen and makes one wonder if Justice Roberts did not want that to happen. Clearly four Justices are fairly anxious to take up another Second Amendment case including Brett Kavanaugh. It will be interesting to see what happens next term for SCOTUS and if any more cases are taken up or not. If the other four get the feeling that Justice Roberts can no longer be counted on to support the Second Amendment the other four may not have much appetite to risk taking up another case.

I don't get anyone who is dragging Kavanaugh on the 2nd Amendment here. He signaled he AGREES with the other conservatives in their interpretations of Heller and the need to take a look at some of the state laws that seem to be contrary to Heller. That's as good as it gets!

So what if he believes this particular case is moot - I always thought it was too and was surprised the court ever agreed to take a look at it.

I simply don't see anything negative with respect to Kavanaugh and the 2nd Amendment here.

WSJ Editorial: “The Chief Justice Ducks on Gun Rights (The Court majority cowers to Senate Democratic threats



What an enormous abdication. The Supreme Court ducked its first Second Amendment case in a decade on Monday, and the only plausible explanation is that Chief Justice John Roberts wanted to avoid becoming a target of vengeful Senate Democrats.

In an unsigned per curiam opinion, the Chief joined the four liberals and a (conflicted) Justice Brett Kavanaugh in declaring moot a challenge to New York City’s onerous gun regulation (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York). At issue is a New York City rule that prevents residents with gun licenses from transporting their guns from their city homes to shooting ranges and homes outside the city. Obtaining even a “premises” license requires a $431 fee and police investigation into an applicant’s mental health, criminal history and moral character. It can take six months.



After the High Court accepted the case, the city revised its ban to let the plaintiffs tote their guns (locked and unloaded) “directly” between residences and other permitted destinations. The state Legislature passed a similar law. Case moot, New York politicians declared.

Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and four other Democrats also weighed in with an amicus brief threatening the Justices if they didn’t follow their orders to drop the case. “The Supreme Court is not well,” they wrote. “Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.’”

The majority buckled and ignored previous rulings to do it. As Justice Alito writes, the Court’s precedents hold that “a case ‘becomes moot only when it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.’” Plaintiffs want to transport their firearms without worrying about getting arrested if they stop somewhere along the way. The city even admitted in oral arguments that it’s unclear whether this is allowed. Justice Alito says this and more make the rule’s violation of the Second Amendment “not a close call.”

On the mootness point, Justice Alito also pokes his colleagues with this hypothetical: “A State enacts a law providing that any woman wishing to obtain an abortion must submit certification from five doctors that the procedure is medically necessary. After a woman sues, claiming that any requirement of physician certification is unconstitutional, the State replaces its old law with a new one requiring certification by three physicians. Would the court be required to dismiss the woman’s suit?” You know the answer.

Justice Kavanaugh’s role here is curious because, while he joined the majority on mootness, he wrote a concurrence agreeing with the dissent on the Second Amendment merits. This looks to us as if he is trying to protect the Chief Justice from being the fifth vote, and the sole “conservative,” providing a liberal victory while making clear he’s still a solid vote himself for gun rights. The phrase for this is too clever by half.

Justice Kavanaugh may agree with the Chief that the Court needs to avoid political controversies, especially with Democrats threatening to pack the Court if they win the White House and Senate in November. But the Court’s timidity on gun rights amid Senate threats means that liberal and media intimidation will escalate. The Court hasn’t taken a Second Amendment case in a decade, even as cities and states erode its landmark Heller decision bit by bit. The Court is sending a signal that the Second Amendment is the exception in the Bill of Rights, a second-class freedom.

“By incorrectly dismissing this case as moot, the Court permits our docket to be manipulated in a way that should not be countenanced,” Justice Alito warns. He’s right but too polite.

The Chief Justice is carving out a reputation as a highly political Justice whose views on the law can be coerced with threats to the Court’s “independence.” The danger for the Court is that, in bending to these threats, the Chief is compromising the very independence he claims to want to protect.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/t...rticle_copyURL_share

quote:

Originally posted by Loswsmith:
...
And the case isn't OVER, the Plaintiff's WON, it was moot to argue the winning further. If there is any spanking, then hopefully it occurs in the attorney's fees area. The Plaintiff's should have sued for damages from the get go, NOT at the Supreme Court level. THAT was the mistake.

I don't know anything about damages nor do I know who would pay. The only winners here are the lawyers that got paid for their efforts.

Heller was decided in 2008, McDonald in 2010. The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association and some gun owners filed suit in 2013 complaining the state continued rules were in violation of those SCOTUS decisions. It took about seven years for the state to backtrack, only after the case got SCOTUS and they figured they would loose.

Then NY quickly says "never mind."

Screw that. Who gets penalized for screwing over the rights of the claimants for the seven to 10 years? Who gets fired? Who gets called out? Who is kicked out of office?

It's unfortunate.

Sounds like a loss being sold as a win to me.

What kind of loss? One of opportunity.

What kind of opportunity? One to send a very, very clear pro-2A message.

Instead they sent a weak pro-2A message, to me. Not against, just not decisively and unwaveringly for.

Didn't they learn anything from Zombieland? Double Tap, just to be sure, else they might come back and bite you.

Kick them when they're down, twice.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.)Et Al sent a letter to the WSJ Editor asserting that it is the "NRA dark money projects," not they, which govern and influence the Supreme Court.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/m...me-court-11588187609


OPINION LETTERS
Moot Points, Gun Laws and the Supreme Court
The Journal’s editorial board would like to blame us for the failure of a major 2nd Amendment challenge at the Supreme Court.
April 29, 2020 3:13 pm ET

The Journal’s editorial board joined Justice Samuel Alito to blame us for the failure of a major Second Amendment challenge at the Supreme Court (“The Chief Justice Ducks on Gun Rights,” April 28). The Justice alleges that we somehow “manipulated” the court. That’s rich, in light of the right-wing dark-money machine surrounding the court.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York was the product of what the National Rifle Association—a major Republican donor, gun industry front group and right-wing political force—has called its “project,” aimed at tearing down common-sense gun safety measures and boosting gun sales. Losing wasn’t what the NRA had in mind when it poured $1.2 million into ads supporting the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh; it must be frustrating that Justice Kavanaugh sided against them this time.

Now, the NRA and its right-wing media allies are inflamed. Surely, Democrats who have the temerity to call out special-interest judicial “projects” and the dark-money machinery that enables them are strong-arming delicate conservative justices, the Journal claims.

The truth is, the NRA’s “project” continues, with Republican-appointed justices calling the shots. While Justice Alito in his dissent in N.Y. Rifle claimed that NRA opponents gamed the system to get this decision, Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence flagrantly invited another gun case to finish this NRA “project”—a signal to the right-wing dark-money machine that boosting Mr. Kavanaugh was still the right call.

The NRA knows Americans want to protect themselves from grimly routine and senseless gun violence. But rather than turn to Congress, where its agenda is dead on arrival, the NRA engineers cases like N.Y. State Rifle and stocks the federal judiciary with judges receptive to its arguments.


So yes, there is manipulation at the Supreme Court, but it is not by Senate Democrats. It is up to the court to clean up its house.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.)

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D., Conn.)

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D., Hawaii)

Sen. Dick Durbin (D., Ill.)

If you look at a list of top US based lobby groups and $ spent - the NRA barely breaks into the top 50.

All the big and "dark" money comes from pharma, med-tech and bio.