The lack of statutory and constitutional basis for the equitable mootness doctrine, combined with its demonstrated potential for abuse, require it to be abolished?

2. Does the Second Circuit's rule that an appeal from a substantially consummated plan is automatically equitably moot if the appellant did not pursue a stay, regardless of a stay's availability or any other equitable factors, undermine any prudential purpose for the doctrine?

3. Does the Second Circuit's rule that the appellant bears the burden of proof in showing lack of equitable mootness cause reviewing courts to speculate that effective relief is unavailable without any evidence?

Does the lack of statutory and constitutional basis for the equitable mootness doctrine, combined with its demonstrated potential for abuse, require it to be abolished?