Re Supreme Court decision, I would have thought anything blatantly & deliberately unconstitutional would be “standing” for every citizen of the United States.
Re Supreme Court decision, I would have thought anything blatantly & deliberately unconstitutional would be “standing” for every citizen of the United States.
Absolutely! This case reminds me of the action the Supreme Court took in refusing to take up the case brought by several states against other states who by the actions and decisions of bureaucrats had altered their process of choosing of Presidential electors in 2020 in violation of the Constitution. The Court said the states bringing the suit lacked standing. Whenever someone cheats with votes, it potentially affects the final outcome and every other voter’s vote! Everyone has standing!
Logically, if they truly are addressing a Constitutional issue, this is exactly correct. But our legal system has long since left the realm of Constitutional right and wrong. We have to remember that the SCOTUS is part and parcel of a system of governance that has divorced itself from the fundamentals of the US Constitution. Even the "conservative" justices view the Constitution as an "evolving" law document. The "inalienable rights" of the American people are no longer of primary concern to Constitutional judges. God has left the building or been kicked out thus gutting the meaning of "inalienable". Now it is what is "reasonable" or in their "best interest."
this whole three ring debacle puts me in mind of another outfit from our past history involving the Brothers Ringling and the Messers Barnum and Bailey. They certainly knew how to get the public's atention.. and their money. All in return for.......... what, exactly?
The provision of the Constitution usually cited as the source of standing requirements is Article III’s grant of federal judicial power, which gives federal courts jurisdiction over “all cases… arising under this Constitution and the laws of the United States.” It’s hard to see how this justifies the modern standing requirement that litigants must have suffered a past or imminent material injury caused by the statute they claim is unconstitutional. Nothing about the word “case” suggests that it is limited only to claims involving narrowly defined injuries. Even if you can’t have a “case” without such an injury, you can certainly have a “controversy” without it. And Article III also gives federal courts jurisdiction over “all controversies to which the United States shall be a party,” controversies between a state and citizens of another state, and controversies between citizens of different states.
Re Supreme Court decision, I would have thought anything blatantly & deliberately unconstitutional would be “standing” for every citizen of the United States.
Absolutely! This case reminds me of the action the Supreme Court took in refusing to take up the case brought by several states against other states who by the actions and decisions of bureaucrats had altered their process of choosing of Presidential electors in 2020 in violation of the Constitution. The Court said the states bringing the suit lacked standing. Whenever someone cheats with votes, it potentially affects the final outcome and every other voter’s vote! Everyone has standing!
And every citizen is harmed by unconstitutional acts
AMEN!! Nailed it!
AGREE!!!
It was one MAJOR, COWARDLY cop out, and I am ashamed of them.
🎯
As a Paralegal, I always stood in awe of SCOTUS.
I lost my starry eyed adulation of them being the "protectors" of the Constitution. Gotta say, it probably started w/ the Citizens United case.
Thats right, Cindy.
We should not accept that our most important RIGHT does not have standing.
Finding "injury" was the easiest thing ever.
It just shows you how out of touch they are and their utter effing ignorance of the harm done during c19.
"and their utter effing ignorance of the harm done during c19" - They are not ignorant of the harm done. They are complicit.
Actually I agree with you. Which makes it even more disgusting
Sorry as I am, I agree
⬆️💯🎯
They actually had an office of the fbi in twitters headquarters for fucks sake.
Logically, if they truly are addressing a Constitutional issue, this is exactly correct. But our legal system has long since left the realm of Constitutional right and wrong. We have to remember that the SCOTUS is part and parcel of a system of governance that has divorced itself from the fundamentals of the US Constitution. Even the "conservative" justices view the Constitution as an "evolving" law document. The "inalienable rights" of the American people are no longer of primary concern to Constitutional judges. God has left the building or been kicked out thus gutting the meaning of "inalienable". Now it is what is "reasonable" or in their "best interest."
We have 3 who haven't "left the building". Unfortunately, they are our older Justices. I worry about who will replace them.
I don't understand why plaintiffs cannot just clarify their standing in response. Why have to throw out the entire thing?
this whole three ring debacle puts me in mind of another outfit from our past history involving the Brothers Ringling and the Messers Barnum and Bailey. They certainly knew how to get the public's atention.. and their money. All in return for.......... what, exactly?
Is Standing even constitutionally based? An interesting exploration from the Volokh Conspiracy.
https://volokh.com/2010/08/19/the-case-against-restrictive-constitutional-standing-requirements/
The provision of the Constitution usually cited as the source of standing requirements is Article III’s grant of federal judicial power, which gives federal courts jurisdiction over “all cases… arising under this Constitution and the laws of the United States.” It’s hard to see how this justifies the modern standing requirement that litigants must have suffered a past or imminent material injury caused by the statute they claim is unconstitutional. Nothing about the word “case” suggests that it is limited only to claims involving narrowly defined injuries. Even if you can’t have a “case” without such an injury, you can certainly have a “controversy” without it. And Article III also gives federal courts jurisdiction over “all controversies to which the United States shall be a party,” controversies between a state and citizens of another state, and controversies between citizens of different states.