National Supreme Court throws out NY case

[Goosebrown]

Supreme Court Throws Out Gun Rights Case

In a 6-3 decision, the justices dismissed a challenge from gun rights groups over an old New York City gun control law.

m.huffpost.com

Thrown out on grounds of mootness. There are many more in the pipeline and if a shot at the Supreme Court means cities/states change laws that works too. Disappointing but not unexpected.

Now. Wasn't Roe moot? She wasn't pregnant when it was decided. She could not at that time have been denied an abortion.

Read More

 

[Jonnyuma]

It may be an unpopular opinion here, but I think they did the right thing.
If they'd heard the case surrounding a repealed law it would have (correctly) marked the court as "politicized". In our favor, yes, but it would color all of their decisions moving forward.

Getting accolades and praise from stupid liberal outlets isn't the point and means less than 0. Sometimes you gotta play dirty if you're gonna rassle w pigs... l totally get (and agree with) that. I also have little doubt that a left-leaning court would have happily taken advantage of a similar situation and we would have rightly cried foul.

The SCOTUS is no place to play politics... the dirty stuff needs to stay in the Capitol where it belongs.

Just my opinion.

 

[Reed]

It may be an unpopular opinion here, but I think they did the right thing.
If they'd heard the case surrounding a repealed law it would have (correctly) marked the court as "politicized". In our favor, yes, but it would color all of their decisions moving forward.

Getting accolades and praise from stupid liberal outlets isn't the point and means less than 0. Sometimes you gotta play dirty if you're gonna rassle w pigs... l totally get (and agree with) that. I also have little doubt that a left-leaning court would have happily taken advantage of a similar situation and we would have rightly cried foul.

The SCOTUS is no place to play politics... the dirty stuff needs to stay in the Capitol where it belongs.

Just my opinion.

Amen

 

[awshoot]

It may be an unpopular opinion here, but I think they did the right thing.
If they'd heard the case surrounding a repealed law it would have (correctly) marked the court as "politicized". In our favor, yes, but it would color all of their decisions moving forward.

Getting accolades and praise from stupid liberal outlets isn't the point and means less than 0. Sometimes you gotta play dirty if you're gonna rassle w pigs... l totally get (and agree with) that. I also have little doubt that a left-leaning court would have happily taken advantage of a similar situation and we would have rightly cried foul.

The SCOTUS is no place to play politics... the dirty stuff needs to stay in the Capitol where it belongs.

Just my opinion.

The problem is this.

ENTITY passes law infringing 2A.
PRO2A group sues
-- a year passes
ENTITY wins at trial
PRO2A group appeals
-- two years pass
ENTITY wins on appeal
PRO2A group appeals to SCOTUS
-- two years pass
ENTITY repeals law
Case dismissed.
-- a few months pass
ENTITY passes new law just as bad
PRO2A group sues

rinse and repeat -- 2A effectively outlawed

EDIT: This case started in 2013. It was April of last year that NYC realized it was about to make pro2a case law. That's 6 freakin' years and a truck load of money, and NYC will just tweak its rules a bit and have another 6 year pass at violating the 2A. The SCOTUS absolutely should have put the hammer down.

 

[awshoot]

The lesson from this case:

ALWAYS ASK FOR DAMAGES

Petitioners also argue that, even though they have not previously asked for damages with respect to the City's old rule, they still could do so in this lawsuit. Petitioners did not seek damages in their complaint; indeed, the possibility of a damages claim was not raised until well into the litigation in this Court. The City argues that it is too late for petitioners to now add a claim for damages. On remand, the Court of Appeals and the District Court may consider whether petitioners may still add a claim for damages in this lawsuit with respect to New York City's old rule. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for such proceedings as are appropriate.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-280_ba7d.pdf

 

[User 1234]

This dismissal also rewards and encourages the D Senators who wrote that threatening letter to the Supreme Court regarding this case, and encourages behavior like Senator Schumer's courthouse steps threat to the specific justices. Now states know they can pass anti-2A laws and if the US Supreme Court agrees to review the case in five years then all they have to do is revise it to escape review. That avoids a US Supreme Court ruling that would kill new anti-2A laws in trial courts months after they were first passed.

 

[arakboss]

What happens with Hawaii case now? 9th was waiting on outcome of NY case. Supreme Court probably won't be giving us many wins anytime soon

 

[awshoot]

What happens with Hawaii case now? 9th was waiting on outcome of NY case. Supreme Court probably won't be giving us many wins anytime soon

We need one more SCOTUS judge.

 

[ma96782]

Pick and choose.

While most of us working slobs......just have to do it (or else). So, what's wrong with that picture? LOL.

Aloha, Mark

 

[WoodsPlinker]

Would have been nice to see strict scrutiny. This just shows they are just as spineless and ineffective as Congress.

Guess it's 3d printing to the rescue, because nobody has our back.

 

[Jonnyuma]

rinse and repeat -- 2A effectively outlawed

That is for sure a problem and it will no doubt happen again. I think if it becomes a habit they will have to eventually allow one of the cases to be heard and shut this crap down.
The Party-Who-Shall-Remain-Nameless thinks they won and, in a way, they did. I don't love some of the effects that will come from this, basically exactly what you outlined. And I'm not sure what the best way to deal with that is... term limits maybe?

The lesson from this case:

ALWAYS ASK FOR DAMAGES

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-280_ba7d.pdf

Absolutely. I'd like to see punitive damages as well, but the only true smackdown can come from the voters.

 

[terdog]

The law is a fickle bubblegum.

 

[awshoot]

That is for sure a problem and it will no doubt happen again. I think if it becomes a habit they will have to eventually allow one of the cases to be heard and shut this crap down.
The Party-Who-Shall-Remain-Nameless thinks they won and, in a way, they did. I don't love some of the effects that will come from this, basically exactly what you outlined. And I'm not sure what the best way to deal with that is... term limits maybe?
Absolutely. I'd like to see punitive damages as well, but the only true smackdown can come from the voters.

In a place like WA term limits would mean trading one anti2A for another anti. I'm in favor of term limits to help reduce corruption, but I don't have high hopes it would change policy.

Eventually, there will be a "hold my beer" state who takes it all the way or alternatively, plaintiffs will be expressly asking for damages.

 

[03A3Sporter]

For those that have posited that the SCOTUS is no place for politics . I submit to you that it is precisely the place for politics as all of these laws are passed by politicians. The court down through the history of this country has indeed been involved in politics from day one. The very makeup of the court is political with whatever party being in charge appointing justices that are most inclined to rule in alignment with the party ideals.

It is obtuse and dangerous to ever assume politics are not in play here. Much of the progressive agenda has been forwared not by legislation but by court opinion.

 

[Jonnyuma]

In a place like WA term limits would mean trading one anti2A for another anti. I'm in favor of term limits to help reduce corruption, but I don't have high hopes it would change policy.

A definite possibility. But what it would help with is the stuff we don't get to see. Entrenched, safe, pols who gather scalps and power over a long period (indefinite, in some cases) of time. Extortion, deal-making, arm-twisting, all at our expense and all made possible by the consolidation of unearned power and influence over their long careers.

I was just watching a show about the 92 LA riots and who was front and center? Maxine By-God Waters. These people never leave willingly.

I wouldn't expect huge policy swings as a result of term limits, but we don't need career politicians and power brokers... we need citizen legislators who honor their oath and respect their constituents.

 

[CLT65]

We need one more SCOTUS judge.

The biggest reason, in my opinion, that we REALLY need to reelect the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Even if you can't stand him personally, or hate other things about him, it's that important. Trump is not necessarily my favorite person, but if Biden wins, I'd fully expect RBG to retire on January 21st, and be replaced by AOC (or worse).

 

[awshoot]

... (or worse).

HRC

 

[awshoot]

A definite possibility. But what it would help with is the stuff we don't get to see. Entrenched, safe, pols who gather scalps and power over a long period (indefinite, in some cases) of time. Extortion, deal-making, arm-twisting, all at our expense and all made possible by the consolidation of unearned power and influence over their long careers.
...

Yep, absolutely. "Career" politician should be a crime, high level felony.

 

[Jonnyuma]

...if Biden wins, I'd fully expect RBG to retire on January 21st, and be replaced by AOC (or worse).

HRC

 

[CRBMoA]

The biggest reason, in my opinion, that we REALLY need to reelect the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Even if you can't stand him personally, or hate other things about him, it's that important. Trump is not necessarily my favorite person, but if Biden wins, I'd fully expect RBG to retire on January 21st, and be replaced by AOC (or worse).

I think you misspelled 'be buried'