Arthur Goldberg,
Fortson v. Toombs — Dissent
“ In the present case we are told by the proponents of the injunction that there exists only a remote possibility that the newly elected legislature or some future one will submit a wholly new constitution to the voters. ”
Arthur Goldberg,
Fortson v. Toombs — Dissent
“ Determining the issue of mootness and deciding 'whether any injunctive relief is now appropriate in light of what has transpired since such relief was first granted,' both come down to the same thing-the question is whether, at this juncture, as appellees contend, 'this appeal presents only an abstract, hypothetical controversy in which the 'lively conflict between antagonistic demands, actively pressed, which makes resolution of the controverted issue a practical necessity' is lacking.' The question is one for this Court to decide. ”
Arthur Goldberg,
Fortson v. Toombs — Dissent
“ The facts relevant to this issue are undisputed. The District Court is in no better position to resolve the issue of mootness than we. No legitimate purpose is served by asking it to determine a question which is properly before us and which a long line of unbroken precedents would have us decide. [1] Moreover, if the case is moot, as I believe, there is no need for a further time-consuming hearing below and a possible future second appeal to this Court. Surely both the District Court and this Court have enough to do without this Court creating unnecessary work for both. ”
