Gun control supporters are desperate — and have already taken drastic steps — to get the Supreme Court to dismiss this case.
What do you think? Will they dismiss it as moot or not accept the voluntary cessation?
I think they may dismiss it as moot, but in the process they will vacate the opinion of the Second Circuit and District Court as moot.
However, there are available cases that will let them cover the same ground.
We will likely find out as soon as Wednesday, October 2 or Monday, October 7, as the issue will likely be decided at the Long Conference on Tuesday, October 1.
Do you have a favorite?
Desperate? Nah. NYC overreached and created an unconstitutional law, got called on it and fixed it so it would go away.
Reminds me of the Juan Padilla case.
W threw him in prison without due process, than when push came to shove. W charged him in federal court and the case was moot.
Allan
As prone as the court is to avoid 2nd Amendment cases in general I would not be at all surprised to see them dismiss.
They should however definitely let the case go forward so that the relevant questions are finally addressed.
Whether or not it is this case or another, I think they court must act to fill in the weaknesses in Keller. Mainly by requiring that any firearms restrictions be considered under strict scrutiny.
And I don’t think things will be as cut or dried as you suggest.
Background checks can survive strict scrutiny, with two important caveats. The time limit in which to conduct the checks must be prompt, perhaps 5 days at most. Any records that are developed as a result of the checks must be destroyed upon successful completion of the check and purchase of the weapon.
Other restrictions, if narrowly tailored, could survive strict scrutiny.
But I do think a better framework is needed so that laws such as that in New York City or elsewhere can not be repeated and the lower courts must have better guidance when encountering a gun case.
No, that isn’t remotely clear.
Any or all rights may be lost through due process including the right to live itself and Kavanaugh isn’t about to overturn that standard.
No, that would not be 'legislating from the bench by any stretch, it would simply set in stone a definition of “prompt”.
That statement shows a level of ignorance that is truly impressive.
Already done. And not by the courts.
I just finished reading Sheldon Whitehouse’s amicus. It’s a scorcher.
Yeah it is. They are idiots.
I wonder what he thinks he’s going to accomplish by insulting the Court.
I would have said that there was a 90% chance the Court would have ruled it moot, before I read Whitehouse’s brief, now I think they’ll take it on the merits just because they’re pissed at him. I think he significantly damaged his position.
The Liberal justices are probably more pissed at him than the Conservatives.
Votes. He’s playing to the psycho base.
Very bad idea.
I bet Thomas is chomping at the bit.
I’m not sure about that. He’s not exactly in a vulnerable seat, and he’s not up for reelection until 2024.
I think they’re all pissed.
I think there’s little question of the merits here - New York’s law was nonsense, and almost certainly unconstitutional. Mootness is the only real issue.
Thomas and Goresuch have been pissed since Peruta.
I dont mean about the issues - I mean procedurally, in regards to Whitehouse’s amicus, and New York City playing games.
I know, the procedure may give them a chance on the issues.
If they decide to rule on the merits, I see two possible likely results.
Either they’ll hold that gun control laws should be subject to strict scrutiny review, or there will be a plurality opinion holding the New York law unconstitutional, but no majority opinion in terms of a standard of review.
I don’t see it going any farther than that.
