The changing definition of STANDING, and Article III injury.

[meaner gene]

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,,,

"A social system of discrimination created an environment in which LGBT people were unsafe," wrote Sotomayor and specifically referenced the Pulse gay nightclub massacre, where 49 people were killed and over 50 people were injured by a gunman in Orlando, Florida.

To pull a MAGA trick from my hat. What she said wasn't entirely false. It was the biggest massacre of LBGTQ people, even if not intended.

 

[progressive hunter]

"A social system of discrimination created an environment in which LGBT people were unsafe," wrote Sotomayor and specifically referenced the Pulse gay nightclub massacre, where 49 people were killed and over 50 people were injured by a gunman in Orlando, Florida.

To pull a MAGA trick from my hat. What she said wasn't entirely false. It was the biggest massacre of LBGTQ people, even if not intended.

its a lie,,, its been proven thats not why it happened,,,

and she did it for a political agenda and had nothing to do with the case at hand or the constitution,,,

but you are free to be butthurt all you want,, I like watching,,

 

[westwall]

Anyone want to comment on the standing issue?

How about this, no creative person should be forced (enslaved) to do the bidding of another.

There are plenty of gay people doing work. Use them.

 

[meaner gene]

How about this, no creative person should be forced (enslaved) to do the bidding of another.

There are plenty of gay people doing work. Use them.

That would put a real twist into Hollywood.

 

[westwall]

That would put a real twist into Hollywood.

How

 

[justoffal]

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.

But. KJB says they shouldn't be following the constitution! It's right there in her snarky dissent.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Anyone want to comment on the standing issue?

It doesn't apply because all parties have standing.

 

[justoffal]

It doesn't apply because all parties have standing.

They even have seating!

 

[EvilCat Breath]

All these semi literates attacking standing are wrong. They are misusing the terminology. What they really mean is ripe. A case is not ripe, and must be dismissed because there is no actual cause or controversy before the court. With such a finding, Lori Smith would have to go home and wait until she actually rejected a customer and got sued under the statute. That's what they mean.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The actual harm was her not being able to do any websites because of the statute that would have compelled her to do something against her faith. She was suing the head of the state's civil rights division for harming her by restricting her religious freedom. This wasn't an advisory opinion. This was an appeal of any existing case from below.

Exactly! If some state passed a law providing for the death penalty for speaking out against the governor, you don't have to speak out get executed and have your family member sue for wrongful death.

You would be immediately harmed by having your speech suppressed. This lady was immediately harmed by fearing consequences.

 

[PeterPilot]

What you missed is that the supreme court has up until now required plaintiffs to suffer "actual harm" not hypotheticals.

The USSC website specifically says that federal courts do not give "advisory" opinions. Or rule on "hypotheticals"

Until NOW.

Do you mean like a broken arm or some physical harm? Do you understand that there is such thing as moral harm, spiritual harm?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Anyone want to comment on the standing issue?

...to secure relief, Ms. Smith first had to establish her stand-
ing to sue. That required her to show “a credible threat”
existed that Colorado would, in fact, seek to compel speech
from her that she did not wish to produce. Susan B. An-
thony List v. Driehaus, 573 U. S. 149, 159 (2014)
...
Ultimately, the district court ruled against Ms. Smith.
405 F. Supp. 3d 907, 912 (Colo. 2019). So did the Tenth
Circuit. 6 F. 4th, at 1168. For its part, the Tenth Circuit
held that Ms. Smith had standing to sue. In that court’s
judgment, she had established a credible threat that, if she
follows through on her plans to offer wedding website ser-
vices, Colorado will invoke CADA to force her to create
speech she does not believe or endorse. Id., at 1172–1175.
The court pointed to the fact that “Colorado has a history of
past enforcement against nearly identical conduct—i.e.,
Masterpiece Cakeshop”; that anyone in the State may file a
complaint against Ms. Smith and initiate “a potentially
burdensome administrative hearing” process; and that
“Colorado [has] decline[d] to disavow future enforcement”
proceedings against her. Id., at 1174. Before us, no party
challenges these conclusions


Looks like standing was settled at the circuit level and was not an issue brought before the court.
The issue was not brought up in dissent.

Much ado about nothing .

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Working as intended.