But it's my understanding, from Jeff Childers, that the Court did NOT so rule ~ that what the Court DID rule was that the plaintiffs before it in the instant case lacked the requisite STANDING to present that issue to the Court for adjudication ... ?? The point being: NO ruling on the merits of the case has been handed down.
But it's my understanding, from Jeff Childers, that the Court did NOT so rule ~ that what the Court DID rule was that the plaintiffs before it in the instant case lacked the requisite STANDING to present that issue to the Court for adjudication ... ?? The point being: NO ruling on the merits of the case has been handed down.
Right, the very fact of ruling that they "lack standing" means that there's a precedent that you can't sue over "one-step-removed" censorship due to lack of standing. Although, it would be quite possible that in future in a less politically-heated climate, SCOTUS might "differentiate" other cases sufficiently as to make this precedent effectively inapplicable to any other case in future.
(Example: "well, the problem was that this case had SO much evidence and the plaintiffs just didn't quite point clearly enough at SPECIFIC acts by the government, but that was highly unusual, and all these other cases have slightly less broad swath of evidence / the plaintiffs were slightly more specific in their claims, therefore they DO have standing")
(Edit: yes it's still a weasel move, but I can't entirely blame the majority for misplacing their dangly bits in the face of loud and repeated calls to pack the court or otherwise neuter SCOTUS' power.)
But it's my understanding, from Jeff Childers, that the Court did NOT so rule ~ that what the Court DID rule was that the plaintiffs before it in the instant case lacked the requisite STANDING to present that issue to the Court for adjudication ... ?? The point being: NO ruling on the merits of the case has been handed down.
But they so very obviously had standing and damages. Alito in his dissent tore the majority a new one.
They definitely punted, too cowardly to make too many rulings against the D power brokers in one session.
Right, the very fact of ruling that they "lack standing" means that there's a precedent that you can't sue over "one-step-removed" censorship due to lack of standing. Although, it would be quite possible that in future in a less politically-heated climate, SCOTUS might "differentiate" other cases sufficiently as to make this precedent effectively inapplicable to any other case in future.
(Example: "well, the problem was that this case had SO much evidence and the plaintiffs just didn't quite point clearly enough at SPECIFIC acts by the government, but that was highly unusual, and all these other cases have slightly less broad swath of evidence / the plaintiffs were slightly more specific in their claims, therefore they DO have standing")
(Edit: yes it's still a weasel move, but I can't entirely blame the majority for misplacing their dangly bits in the face of loud and repeated calls to pack the court or otherwise neuter SCOTUS' power.)
EXACTLY