SCOTUS Dodges NYSRPA Case

So 6-3 the Supreme Court decided to dismiss the suit against New York City as moot because New York City changed it's uber-restrictive ruling to remove any grounds for a lawsuit. 

Initially, justices took exception to this because they saw plainly what New York City was doing. The court took the case despite the change precisely because it was naked attempt to avoid a devastating (for gun control, ruling). The justices in favor argued that if the tactic were allowed, then cities could do what they want until faced with a potentially adverse Supreme Court decision.

New York City got away with their scam tactic. I also wonder if the justices were improperly influenced by Democratic congresspersons' not-so-veiled threats to pack the Supreme Court or impeach conservative justices should the court not vote as they did here. 

There's lots of better commentary elsewhere on the Internet, so I'm not going to waste my time rehashing what was said just in my own verbiage. The take away I'm seeing is that the court wants to hear a "better" case (or might be waiting for Ginsburg to die). 

This decision doesn't surprise me. I'm disappointed, but not surprised. Why? The Supreme Court is as motivated by politics as anyone else. Earlier courts didn't seem to care much (look at the liberal Warren Court), but this one seems to worry about reputation and feelings. We got gay marriage and Obamacare because of feelings and the zeitgeist that such things were publicly popular. Justices want to be loved too.

In this case, the decision makes sense, if you accept the reality that the justice system often cannot see the forest for the trees. Courts exist to resolve disputes. In this case, NYC supposedly solved the dispute by "fixing" their odious requirement. Thus, nothing for the court to decide on. Unfortunately the court side-stepped the larger issue which was about the Second Amendment being a second-class right and subversion of the court itself.

Some are saying not to fear. Other, better cases are coming. Cases that could possibly be a better catalyst for blowing the Second Amendment wide open and making our dreams come true. There are a lot in the pipeline and several the court has expressed interest in. Ginsburg can't live forever and Trump will likely be president for four more years.

Also, the Second Amendment is merely a reminder of our inherent rights. It doesn't go away because a tyrant or tyrants say so.