tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9615048.post39692142618287471..comments2024-03-27T14:54:46.050-04:00Comments on Southern District of Florida Blog: Welcome backDavid Oscar Markushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18386723948607633980noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9615048.post-22227189184988356172019-12-03T17:39:49.268-05:002019-12-03T17:39:49.268-05:00Justice Altio cut to the core here:
JUSTICE ALITO...Justice Altio cut to the core here:<br /><br />JUSTICE ALITO: Mr. Dearing, are the<br />-- are people in New York less safe now as a<br />result of the enactment of the new city and<br />state laws than they were before?<br /><br />MR. DEARING: We -- we -- no, I don't<br />think so. We made a judgment expressed by our<br />police commissioner that -- that it was<br />consistent with public safety to repeal the<br />prior rule and to move forward without it.<br /><br />JUSTICE ALITO: Well, if they're not<br />less safe, then what possible justification<br />could there have been for the old rule, which<br />you have abandoned? <br /><br />The transcript of the OA is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/18-280_j4ek.pdf <br /><br />I'm not sure the gamesmanship by New York City and State -- rescind the old law, and implement a new one with a new set of infringements, only AFTER the SCOTUS granted cert -- is going to get the respondents the punt for mootness that they seek. Read the OA and do the arithmetic and I don't think the betting would be very clear at this point.<br /><br />If it does, that in itself will be awfully bad news: We're the state legislature. We pass Law A that impermissibly restricts an exercise of an enumerated right. We know it isn't the narrowest means available to effectuate a compelling state interest, but we don't care. We want the speech or the assembly or the religious practice or whatever it may be restricted to suit us. Citizens sue over the law and, five years and $$$$ later, we land in front of the Supremes. We rescind Law A, rearrange and revise it ever so slightly, pass it anew as Law B, and cry "Moot!" Whereupon the citizens can be pleased to go and sue again if they like. Rinse and repeat.<br /><br />It's not just cynical, it would cut the guts out of meaningful judicial review.<br /><br />Robert Kuntzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08629632558320667302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9615048.post-72813745647303844892019-12-03T13:09:53.568-05:002019-12-03T13:09:53.568-05:00Conclusion: It's OK to violate your civil righ...Conclusion: It's OK to violate your civil rights as long as you know lower Circuits will side with you. But if the SCOTUS takes up the argument, the Gov't can just rescind the infringing law and walk away with no consequence of any kind?<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9615048.post-1251446993678992542019-12-02T16:29:00.006-05:002019-12-02T16:29:00.006-05:00Sounds like they will punt based on mootness.
Seem...Sounds like they will punt based on mootness.<br />Seems right. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9615048.post-82342849018449421062019-12-02T09:55:06.844-05:002019-12-02T09:55:06.844-05:00https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/201...https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2019/11/29/desantis-is-reshaping-floridas-courts-with-the-federalist-societys-help/<br /><br />Your welcome.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com