Latest Breaking News

FBaggins

(28,707 posts)

8. I read the whole thing. Did you?

Fri Nov 27, 2020, 12:26 AM

Nov 2020

Nowhere does he suggest mootness.

And when Kavanaugh points out that none of the dissenters did so... he doesn’t disagree.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

45 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Sotomayor Calls Supreme Court's N.Y. Pandemic Ruling A 'Deadly Game' [View all] Judi Lynn Nov 2020 OP

they only put it on the docket so they could give a big wet kiss to the religious nuts yaesu Nov 2020 #1

Exactly. The case was MOOT. It should have been dismissed. SunSeeker Nov 2020 #2

It wasn't moot FBaggins Nov 2020 #3

It was moot. There was no proof NY was about to reimpose the same restrictions. SunSeeker Nov 2020 #4

That isn't how mootness works FBaggins Nov 2020 #5

Did you read Roberts' dissent? SunSeeker Nov 2020 #6

I read the whole thing. Did you? FBaggins Nov 2020 #8

The parties in Dufresne v. Veneman didn't bring up mootness either. SunSeeker Nov 2020 #14

They didn't? FBaggins Nov 2020 #19

No, they didn't. The court asked for supplemental declarations on it. SunSeeker Nov 2020 #30

Perhaps you haven't read appellate decisions before? FBaggins Nov 2020 #33

I've read lots of appellate decisions. SunSeeker Nov 2020 #34

I haven't challenged the notion that Roberts got it right FBaggins Nov 2020 #35

I think he didn't want to use sharp language on his fellow conservatives. SunSeeker Nov 2020 #37

You don't "focus" on merits if you think the case is moot FBaggins Nov 2020 #39

The dissents were for the most part written before the case was moot. SunSeeker Nov 2020 #40

How? FBaggins Nov 2020 #41

Cuomo's letter was filed 11/19: the Diocese's letter was filed 11/20; the opinion issued 11/25. SunSeeker Nov 2020 #42

There's a whole lot of words there Laha Nov 2020 #17

And yes, it is moot. SunSeeker Nov 2020 #7

Note the clear difference in language FBaggins Nov 2020 #9

Roberts uses key mootness language ("no need to rule"..."it might not happen"). SunSeeker Nov 2020 #11

Once again... that isn't "mootness language" FBaggins Nov 2020 #18

No, they would just have to argue that the state did not intend to pursue the same actons. SunSeeker Nov 2020 #31

What matters were the circumstances before the court FBaggins Nov 2020 #32

Of course what matters are the circumstances before the court. SunSeeker Nov 2020 #36

If we add justices to balance the court BigmanPigman Nov 2020 #10

We're not adding Justices until at least 2023 Polybius Nov 2020 #12

Damn! BigmanPigman Nov 2020 #13

Not necessarily so. Votes change. There's are Manchins across the aisle, too. ancianita Nov 2020 #15

No, there's no way to reach across the aisle on this one Polybius Nov 2020 #29

Honestly, i would ignore the ruling and try and watch the supreme court enforce it. Mr. Sparkle Nov 2020 #16

You may have a point there. bucolic_frolic Nov 2020 #25

It's moot Polybius Nov 2020 #45

Sure, they could ignore it Polybius Nov 2020 #44

Gorsuch, McRapey, Handmaiden, Uncle Thomas, Alito, and religion can all go to hell RVN VET71 Nov 2020 #20

That is exactly right! ananda Nov 2020 #21

Covid Barret will harm and kill many more of us during Roisin Ni Fiachra Nov 2020 #22

The ruling reaffirms the right to die bucolic_frolic Nov 2020 #23

This ruling leave us unable to fend off the next future plague. PurgedVoter Nov 2020 #24

The right to spread disease! It must be in the Constitution somewhere, right? Towlie Nov 2020 #26

to all on the "moot, "not moot" question llashram Nov 2020 #27

Maybe the Democratic party can really work at winning the 2 Georgia Senate seats samsingh Nov 2020 #28

If governments want to do this, they should pass a law giving themselves the power to do so. Calista241 Nov 2020 #38

K&R ck4829 Nov 2020 #43