The changing definition of STANDING, and Article III injury.

[Dekster]

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.

You are just being obtuse. The part of the case you bolded does not say that you have to have enforcement to have standing. The Supreme Court cited its own case law. The 10th Circuit found she had standing; the SCOTUS fond she had standing.

 

[meaner gene]

You are just being obtuse. The part of the case you bolded does not say that you have to have enforcement to have standing. The Supreme Court cited its own case law. The 10th Circuit found she had standing; the SCOTUS fond she had standing.

The imminent enforcement is what gave the other case standing.

This case enforcement was speculative, possible years away if ever. Yet they picked this case before it was "ripe".

That shows they were using a political agenda, by violating legal precedent.

 

[progressive hunter]

I find this, lying in a court opinion,, a bigger problem,,

Justice Sotomayor mocked over factually incorrect claim in dissent against Christian web designer decision | Blaze Media

On a day when the liberal cause suffered many defeats at the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor was also mocked and ridiculed over a factually false claim she wrote in a dissent. The highest court in the land ruled on Friday that a graphic designer could not be forced by...

www.theblaze.com

 

[meaner gene]

The 10th Circuit found she had standing; the SCOTUS fond she had standing.

2019 Outlook: Trump Judge Picks Could Flip Circuits (2)

President Donald Trump’s remarkable record of appointing conservative judges is leading to a dramatic shift in the make-up of several federal appeals courts.

news.bloomberglaw.com

President Donald Trump’s remarkable record of appointing conservative judges is leading to a dramatic shift in the make-up of several federal appeals courts.

 

[progressive hunter]

2019 Outlook: Trump Judge Picks Could Flip Circuits (2)

President Donald Trump’s remarkable record of appointing conservative judges is leading to a dramatic shift in the make-up of several federal appeals courts.

news.bloomberglaw.com

President Donald Trump’s remarkable record of appointing conservative judges is leading to a dramatic shift in the make-up of several federal appeals courts.

we are supposed to have conservative judges not liberals,,

 

[meaner gene]

I find this, lying in a court opinion,, a bigger problem,,

Justice Sotomayor mocked over factually incorrect claim in dissent against Christian web designer decision | Blaze Media

On a day when the liberal cause suffered many defeats at the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor was also mocked and ridiculed over a factually false claim she wrote in a dissent. The highest court in the land ruled on Friday that a graphic designer could not be forced by...

www.theblaze.com

Is that like the plaintiffs claim that "MIKE" asked her for a website?

 

[progressive hunter]

Is that like the plaintiffs claim that "MIKE" asked her for a website?

shes a judge not a plaintiff,,, and she lied on a public record,,

 

[meaner gene]

we are supposed to have conservative judges not liberals,,

Conservative judges that grant standing because it furthers their political agenda?

 

[progressive hunter]

Conservative judges that grant standing because it furthers their political agenda?

what political agenda?? to get a bad law thrown out??

thats their job,,,

face it youre just butt hurt that the alphabet people got slapped and told to sit down and shut up,,,AGAIN,,

 

[meaner gene]

shes a judge not a plaintiff,,, and she lied on a public record,,

So did the plaintiff about "MIKE" asking her for a website she would have found objectionable.

 

[Lastamender]

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.

The harm is to their faith. Any faith you have is your right. And adhering to it is your right too.

 

[meaner gene]

what political agenda?? to get a bad law thrown out??

thats their job,,,

face it youre just butt hurt that the alphabet people got slapped and told to sit down and shut up,,,AGAIN,,

This isn't about bad laws, but violating their own rules, in order to rule on a bad law, but only the bad laws they don't like. Bad laws they like, have to ripen first, but laws they don't like are served up raw.

 

[meaner gene]

The harm is to their faith. Any faith you have is your right. And adhering to it is your right too.

The question isn't harm, it's when that harm occurred. Standing requires the harm be real, or be imminent, not future, speculative or hypothetical harm.

 

[progressive hunter]

So did the plaintiff about "MIKE" asking her for a website she would have found objectionable.

so youre OK with a judge lying on a government document by upset the rules were flexed to hear a case on a bad law,,,

one of those is a political agenda and the other is doing their job,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

This isn't about bad laws, but violating their own rules, in order to rule on a bad law, but only the bad laws they don't like. Bad laws they like, have to ripen first, but laws they don't like are served up raw.

its their rules,, is there a rule against lying on a government document pushing a political agenda??

I think that ones a law,,,

your outrage seems to be very selective based on your agenda,,,

 

[meaner gene]

so youre OK with a judge lying on a government document by upset the rules were flexed to hear a case on a bad law,,,

one of those is a political agenda and the other is doing their job,,,

Well, first your (possibly biased) website didn't explain what she said.
Do you have what was false in her dissent?

 

[progressive hunter]

Well, first your (possibly biased) website didn't explain what she said.
Do you have what was false in her dissent?

are you mentally ill?? its right there,,,

 

[meaner gene]

are you mentally ill?? its right there,,,

You have to hit "READ MORE" in order to see it.
So it's not "right there"

 

[progressive hunter]

You have to hit "READ MORE" in order to see it.
So it's not "right there"

OMG!! you do,, whats wrong your finger broke??

youre a fucking liar,, it is before that,, after is all the people mocking her for lying,,,

 

[Lastamender]

The question isn't harm, it's when that harm occurred. Standing requires the harm be real, or be imminent, not future, speculative or hypothetical harm.

OK. I like the decision.