Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

xtry51 said:
I read the transcript. What I find most interesting about these hearings is how ridiculously short they are for such important topics.
Click to expand...

This isn’t Law & Order. It’s supposed to be a time when the justices can clarify points within the briefs. Today it’s more a show of what each judge is thinking.
 
Dadstoys said:
They are continuing shouting "Moot" on the news.
Which does mean they are sweating it actually being heard.
Maybe we'll get lucky and Roberts will want to make up for the ungodly f*ck he threw into us with Obamacare.
On the other hand they probably still have the same pictures of him with a dead hooker or a live boy, so who knows.
Click to expand...
Seems to be a bit of wishful thinking from the left (the media) about mootness. Shocking!

From a non-lawyer perspective, it's obvious they changed the law to hopefully about Scotus. It seems like there are some angles that indicate it may not be moot. But more importantly, these lower courts need to be set straight. Seems like mootness shouldn't matter for that...
 
TLB said:
Seems to be a bit of wishful thinking from the left (the media) about mootness. Shocking!

From a non-lawyer perspective, it's obvious they changed the law to hopefully about Scotus. It seems like there are some angles that indicate it may not be moot. But more importantly, these lower courts need to be set straight. Seems like mootness shouldn't matter for that...
Click to expand...
It's pretty clear that Sotomyer and Ginsburg have already made up their minds ('Cause Guns ) .
I'd say that was a given no matter what the merits of the case were.
I'm curious to see if the juice was worth the squeeze on Kavanaugh.
 
Dadstoys said:
It's pretty clear that Sotomyer and Ginsburg have already made up their minds ('Cause Guns ) .
I'd say that was a given no matter what the merits of the case were.
I'm curious to see if the juice was worth the squeeze on Kavanaugh.
Click to expand...
I think Roberts is the question/problem. He is the "tie breaker" on this issue. I'm not worried about Kavanaugh, especially after what the left did to him during the nomination.
 
This case is very likely to get DIGed on mootness, and that may not be such a bad thing. This was a VERY narrow question and gave the court the opportunity to make a very narrow ruling. The antis may have shot themselves in the foot (again). The shadow docket is 12 or 13 petitions deep and all of the them give the court a better opportunity to make a broader ruling.

xtry51 said:
I read the transcript. What I find most interesting about these hearings is how ridiculously short they are for such important topics.
Click to expand...
Most arguments are this short. The meat and potatoes of these cases are in the pleadings. Arguments are simply an opportunity for the parties to underscore their positions and are the only opportunity the justices have to ask questions. The interesting change this term is that the justices are holding their tongues for two full minutes before hitting the attorneys up with questions. (although Justice Ginsberg seems to have forgotten the new rule today)
 
Last edited:
Wow that was a great read. The Justices don't seem to be that keen on the mootness argument, seeing through NY's transparent attempt to avid and effectual relief/injunction.

Now my prognostication - the Court will grant a narrow injunction against RKBA inside the home, in transport to a second home, or for training purposes. This will be a win but will of course leave open the question of right to carry most anywhere in a jurisdiction subject to public safety concerns.
 
This case is critical in many ways. Interesting questions from the justices. I did like the one “can I stop to visit my mother on the way to the range” of course that answer was no. I hope they rule against NY the right to ownership there is already so suppressed it’s ridiculous.
 
I continue to believe that a narrow ruling on the merits is possible. Roberts could be playing the long game and could offer some of the moderate liberal justices (Breyer/Kagan) that they can either join him in a narrow merits ruling that affirms RKBA outside the home but goes no further, or they can get a narrow 5-4 ruling that's much broader.

Roberts is a movement conservative but he's also deeply concerned about the staying power and long term legitimacy of his court's rulings. This would be perfectly in line with that. It would also set up lots of future strong 5-4 rulings for 2A cases from the shadow docket.
 
xtry51 said:
I read the transcript. What I find most interesting about these hearings is how ridiculously short they are for such important topics.
Click to expand...

80-95% of the information you want to put in front of the justices, you put in the brief. The briefs are the heart of an appellate argument. The way oral argument is supposed to work is "ok, counsel, we've read your brief and we have questions about legal points X, Y, and Z here in your brief."

You don't argue facts on appeal. You don't talk about topics not in your brief. You don't make arguments that aren't in your brief.

The briefs are where its at. This isn't a trial.
 
C. Stockwell said:
80-95% of the information you want to put in front of the justices, you put in the brief. The briefs are the heart of an appellate argument. The way oral argument is supposed to work is "ok, counsel, we've read your brief and we have questions about legal points X, Y, and Z here in your brief."

You don't argue facts on appeal. You don't talk about topics not in your brief. You don't make arguments that aren't in your brief.

The briefs are where its at. This isn't a trial.
Click to expand...

I get that and I've read the briefs. Having read them, I find this oral discussion extremely short, especially on questions for NYC side. There are a lot of follow up questions I thought of whole reading this transcript and i find the lack of discussion surprising. Well, maybe not surprising since I see how SCOTUS rules retardedly all the time.
 
xtry51 said:
I get that and I've read the briefs. Having read them, I find this oral discussion extremely short, especially on questions for NYC side. There are a lot of follow up questions I thought of whole reading this transcript and i find the lack of discussion surprising. Well, maybe not surprising since I see how SCOTUS rules retardedly all the time.
Click to expand...

Oral argument isn't "a discussion." A lot of questions is usually a good thing - the justices are engaged and have a lot on their minds. You don't pay appellate counsel to go up there and ramble on. If appellate counsel is doing all the talking, he's not engaging the justices enough to spur them to ask questions.

This isn't a discussion among equals - appellate counsel's job is to inform the justices. That means being "in the hot seat" and responding to the justices, not talking about what he wants to talk about. Again, that's what you do in the brief because the brief is where you make your argument.
 
C. Stockwell said:
Oral argument isn't "a discussion." A lot of questions is usually a good thing - the justices are engaged and have a lot on their minds. You don't pay appellate counsel to go up there and ramble on. If appellate counsel is doing all the talking, he's not engaging the justices enough to spur them to ask questions.

This isn't a discussion among equals - appellate counsel's job is to inform the justices. That means being "in the hot seat" and responding to the justices, not talking about what he wants to talk about. Again, that's what you do in the brief because the brief is where you make your argument.
Click to expand...

I was referring to the Justices. Not counsel. I expect a lot more questions from all of them. It is clear what Justices are trying to have a real probing debate to bring issues to light and which ones are grandstanding from their clearly made decision or basically sleeping on the job.
 
When talking about continuous travel, why did Clement fail to bring up NYC's blatant and disrespect for FOPA's safe travel provisions? Why would NYC respect state transportation law when it doesn't respect federal transportation law?

That alone should make it evident the case isn't moot.
 
MaverickNH said:
To this end, the guy who drives the truck delivering shotguns to Bass Pro is "bearing arms"...
Click to expand...

Wasn't this the problem with the original gun free school zones law? There was a trucker whose truck broke down within 1,000 feet of a school zone and the trucker only found afterwards that he had firearms in the back of his truck and was charged with carrying guns in a gun free zone? I thought we were already way past that?
 
C. Stockwell said:
Oral argument isn't "a discussion."
... because the brief is where you make your argument.
Click to expand...

OK, so you don't make the argument in "the argument", but in "the brief"? Did I get that right?



Waher said:
When talking about continuous travel, why did Clement fail to bring up NYC's blatant and disrespect for FOPA's safe travel provisions? Why would NYC respect state transportation law when it doesn't respect federal transportation law?

That alone should make it evident the case isn't moot.
Click to expand...
I was also wondering about this.
 
Coyote33 said:
OK, so you don't make the argument in "the argument", but in "the brief"? Did I get that right
Click to expand...

Lawyers submit the briefs in advance of oral arguments. You can't make arguments that aren't in the brief. The judges ask questions about what's in the brief or if something should be.
 
VetteGirlMA said:
Wasn't this the problem with the original gun free school zones law? There was a trucker whose truck broke down within 1,000 feet of a school zone and the trucker only found afterwards that he had firearms in the back of his truck and was charged with carrying guns in a gun free zone? I thought we were already way past that?
Click to expand...

U.S. v. Lopez (1995) was the case that got the original GFSZA thrown out. It was the first time since Wickard v. Filburn that SCOTUS drew lines around Congress's power to regulate damn near anything it pleased as "interstate commerce" by saying that the matter at hand didn't have enough of a connection to interstate commerce. The case involved a 12th grade student who carried a loaded revolver into his high school.
 
I wonder if SCOTUS would ever rule that milita = state and States define how the militia is armed. SO the left wing Statists in CA, NY, NJ, etc get to do what they want in their state, but SCOTUS solidifies that Congress can't pre-empt state firearm laws, which has been what Free States have been putting on the books. Drive a wedge deeper, toward a Secession by someone over what Congress does? Just a thought on how the SCOTUS absolves themselves as they are wont to do
 

Similar threads

Massachusetts High Court Provides Cover for Unconstitutional Gun Laws
Replies
8
Views
597
lutstribe
L
Garland v. VanDerStok
Replies
0
Views
120
lutstribe
L
Supreme Court decision on rifle bans
Replies
9
Views
744
Tartakovsky
Tartakovsky
Circuit Court Judge Strikes Down Illinois FOID Card Requirement for Guns in the Home
Replies
1
Views
136
sbhaven
S
Supreme Court ending permits
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Back
Top Bottom