The changing definition of STANDING, and Article III injury.

[progressive hunter]

There was no one suing her arguing they were not served, She was suing the state because she didn't want to follow a state law. But the problem is, the state never tried to enforce the law against her, because she never actually tested the law.
She wasn't even in the website business.

It's like someone suing Harvard over their admission policies, because one day they might want to go to Harvard.

these alphabet people just need to get over it and move along,,,

 

[meaner gene]

That infringes upon freedom of association.

The current question isn't on if there was a 1st amendment violation, but how the court threw out their definition of "standing" in order to even hear the case.

The court wanted to rule on a law before the subject was ripe, and redefined "standing" in order to do so.

 

[meaner gene]

PA laws are unconstitutional, as they violate the Constitutional right to freedom of association. If most people don't like you... That's your problem.

It's not a question of if the law was constitutional. An example was the line item veto, which clearly violated the constitution, and congresses power of the purse. But the supreme court refused to take the issue, because there were no plaintiffs that suffered "actual harm" in order to have "standing" before the court.

 

[White 6]

Sorry, bro. The right of a God-fearing Christian website designer to remain true to their faith, trumps the right of some Sodomites to force that Christian to go against his or her God's commandments. So the SC's decision was congruent with the US Constitution.

It says so right there in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Did you think sodomy was a "religion" or something? Better luck next time.

He is not saying that is wrong. He is pointing out, The Supreme Court broke it's own rules to take the case, so they do rule on hypotheticals, or did this time.
Personally, I am from a time, when if you didn't want to do business with somebody, they could spend their money somewhere else, if you were a private entity with no government contracts.

 

[meaner gene]

these alphabet people just need to get over it and move along,,,

This isn't a trivial issue. It means the new conservative supreme court will do WTF they want. They don't have to follow stare decicis , or even their own definition of "standing" before an Article III court.

 

[progressive hunter]

This isn't a trivial issue. It means the new conservative supreme court will do WTF they want. They don't have to follow stare decicis , or even their own definition of "standing" before an Article III court.

youre going to need more than this to support that claim,,

and the court is supposed to be conservatives not liberals,, liberal ideology is in direct opposition to the constitution,,

 

[Dekster]

Actually she didn't have standing, according to previous supreme court decisions, refusing cases for lack of standing.

How it got to the supreme court has legal experts confused.

She had standing under Susan B. Anthony List v Driehaus 573 U. S. 149--a 2014 SCOTUS case. They said so right there in their opinion. All she had to do was show there was a credible threat that Colorado would try to make her if she entered into that endeavor. There is nothing to confuse people about that. What does have some people doing is questioning whether or not she fabricated a customer inquiry since he just recently said he was married to a woman for 15 years and it wasn't him even though she identified him as the customer who had wanted her to do the custom gay wedding website.

 

[meaner gene]

He is not saying that is wrong. He is pointing out, The Supreme Court broke it's own rules to take the case, so they do rule on hypotheticals, or did this time.

That is exactly my point. This court has decided they can rule on laws they don't like, even before the law is enforced or anyone suffers harm.

As you said, they're ruling on hypotheticals now.

 

[progressive hunter]

That is exactly my point. This court has decided they can rule on laws they don't like, even before the law is enforced or anyone suffers harm.

As you said, they're ruling on hypotheticals now.

god forbid we stop something before it causes harm,,

 

[meaner gene]

youre going to need more than this to support that claim,,

and the court is supposed to be conservatives not liberals,, liberal ideology is in direct opposition to the constitution,,

They claim to be conservative, yet they do the radical act of throwing out their own rules, in order to push a political agenda.

 

[progressive hunter]

They claim to be conservative, yet they do the radical act of throwing out their own rules, in order to push a political agenda.

I dont see it that way,,,

how about we see how it turns out??

we might end up getting rid of a bad law before someone goes to jail for it

 

[meaner gene]

She had standing under Susan B. Anthony List v Driehaus 573 U. S. 149--a 2014 SCOTUS case. They said so right there in their opinion. All she had to do was show there was a credible threat that Colorado would try to make her if she entered into that endeavor.

{{meta.fullTitle}}

www.oyez.org

Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus

The district court dismissed the suit by SBA List for lack of standing and ripeness. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion for the unanimous Court. The Court held that pre-enforcement challenges are justiciable when circumstances indicate that threatened enforcement of the statute is sufficiently imminent. If the threatened enforcement is sufficiently imminent, the petitioners have alleged sufficient injury for Article III standing and justiciability.

the Court held that the prospect of enforcement was not "imaginary or speculative" and that petitioners had shown sufficient injury for pre-enforcement review. The Court also held that the petitioners' suit was prudentially ripe because their challenge was purely legal, the issue would not be clarified by future factual development, and denying prompt judicial review would force them to choose between refraining from political speech or risking burdensome Commission proceedings and criminal prosecution.

 

[San Souci]

The Supreme Court rules for a designer who doesn't want to make wedding websites for gay couples

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled a Christian graphic artist who wants to design wedding websites can refuse to work with gay couples, a setback for LGBTQ+ people and another win for religious plaintiffs.

apnews.com

the Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled on Friday that a Christian graphic artist who wants to design wedding websites can refuse to work with same-sex couples.

The court ruled 6-3 for designer Lorie Smith, saying that she can refuse to design websites for same-sex weddings despite a Colorado law that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation, race, gender and other characteristics. The court said forcing her to create the websites would violate her free speech rights under the Constitution’s First Amendment.

Smith, who owns a Colorado design business called 303 Creative, does not currently create wedding websites. She has said that she wants to but that her Christian faith would prevent her from creating websites celebrating same-sex marriages. And that’s where she ran into conflict with state law.

Previously the supreme court required actual injury, not potential future injury in order to have standing before a federal court.

Supreme Court Narrows Article III Standing

SCOTUS held that plaintiffs lack Article III standing to seek damages unless they can can show real-world injury.

www.jonesday.com

Supreme Court Narrows Article III Standing in Damages Actions

On June 25, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 20-297, vacating a class-action judgment and holding that plaintiffs lack Article III standing to seek damages for a private defendant's statutory violations unless plaintiffs can show an actual—and not merely potential—real-world injury.

USMB original content requirement:

The recent case gave standing to someone who suffered no actual real world harm. Yet the court
previously required real world harm in order to have standing. Is this why people have lost confidence in the supreme court to actually follow the constitution.

How about that Fag couple who sued a Baker for not selling them a "Gay" cake? Just how were THEY injured? Ruined the Baker.

 

[meaner gene]

god forbid we stop something before it causes harm,,

I have always thought that people should be able to do just that, but the supreme court has time after time said that they don't give advisory opinions.

That's why issues of can a president pardon himself, can't be put before the courts, before a president actually tries.

Don't agree with not giving advisory opinions, but the court can't make exceptions because they have a political agenda they want to rule on.

 

[progressive hunter]

I have always thought that people should be able to do just that, but the supreme court has time after time said that they don't give advisory opinions.

That's why issues of can a president pardon himself, can't be put before the courts, before a president actually tries.

Don't agree with not giving advisory opinions, but the court can't make exceptions because they have a political agenda they want to rule on.

do you have any proof thats what theyre doing??

keep in mind by definition everything a liberal does is based on a political agenda not a constitutional one,,,

lets see how it plays out before we get our panties in a wad,,,

 

[Dekster]

{{meta.fullTitle}}

www.oyez.org

Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus

The district court dismissed the suit by SBA List for lack of standing and ripeness. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion for the unanimous Court. The Court held that pre-enforcement challenges are justiciable when circumstances indicate that threatened enforcement of the statute is sufficiently imminent. If the threatened enforcement is sufficiently imminent, the petitioners have alleged sufficient injury for Article III standing and justiciability.

the Court held that the prospect of enforcement was not "imaginary or speculative" and that petitioners had shown sufficient injury for pre-enforcement review. The Court also held that the petitioners' suit was prudentially ripe because their challenge was purely legal, the issue would not be clarified by future factual development, and denying prompt judicial review would force them to choose between refraining from political speech or risking burdensome Commission proceedings and criminal prosecution.

Well now you have highlighted what I have told your from the beginning--she had standing. Had you just accepted it, we could have been spared a lot of spelling out words.

 

[meaner gene]

I dont see it that way,,,

how about we see how it turns out??

we might end up getting rid of a bad law before someone goes to jail for it

It's purely political. The conservative court stepped in where there was no imminent threat of enforcement. Thus violating their own rules of when a pre-enforcement challenge could be made.

There are thousands of other laws that can't be challenged because supreme court said the plaintiffs had no standing.

 

[progressive hunter]

It's purely political. The conservative court stepped in where there was no imminent threat of enforcement. Thus violating their own rules of when a pre-enforcement challenge could be made.

There are thousands of other laws that can't be challenged because supreme court said the plaintiffs had no standing.

opinions vary,,,

did you read bidens affirmative action judges dissent on the affirmative action case??

she openly stated her opinion is based on her racist liberal ideology totally devoid of any constitutional basis??

did you say anything about it??

 

[meaner gene]

Well now you have highlighted what I have told your from the beginning--she had standing. Had you just accepted it, we could have been spared a lot of spelling out words.

Just the opposite. They had standing based on the actions that already happened

Citing threats of legal action by Driehaus's counsel, the company that owned the billboard space refused to put up the ad. Driehaus filed a complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission alleging that SBA List violated Ohio's campaign laws by making false statements about his voting record. SBA List filed an action in federal district court arguing that the Ohio statutes infringed upon its rights to free speech and association under the First Amendment.

In the website case, the woman wasn't making websites. And there would be no enforcement until she went into the business (if ever) and someone (if ever) requested a website she objected to.

That's why this case was purely hypothetical.

 

[meaner gene]

opinions vary,,,

did you read bidens affirmative action judges dissent on the affirmative action case??

she openly stated her opinion is based on her racist liberal ideology totally devoid of any constitutional basis??

did you say anything about it??

From previous post in another thread.

Really? She agreed with the previous court decisions from Bakke to Fisher.