Historically, that would be true, but this SCOTUS is wild. Standing doesn’t mean much anymore. Take, for example, the recent ruling from the anti-lgbt web developer in the 303 Creative v Elenis decision. Smith had not started a business at the time the original suit was filed, and, after she had begun operating, shr did not have any requests to make such a wedding site as described in the suit. During an appeal, she provided a false request – for a man already married to a woman – as her standing. Her standing was obviously bullshit; she had none.
Not that it really helps. Our current SCOTUS will certainly not agree to hear a case that could actually benefit us and defend our civil rights. We should probably start fresh with a new SCOTUS if we want any of that.
The law is illegal federally, but unfortunately, the necessity of standing means it can’t be challenged until someone’s on the hook.
And… Well… [Gestures wildly at this SCOTUS]
I wonder if we slip Thomas a margherita and a twenty if that’ll be enough to buy some influence.
Is he that into pizza or what?
Take a lap
Historically, that would be true, but this SCOTUS is wild. Standing doesn’t mean much anymore. Take, for example, the recent ruling from the anti-lgbt web developer in the 303 Creative v Elenis decision. Smith had not started a business at the time the original suit was filed, and, after she had begun operating, shr did not have any requests to make such a wedding site as described in the suit. During an appeal, she provided a false request – for a man already married to a woman – as her standing. Her standing was obviously bullshit; she had none.
Not that it really helps. Our current SCOTUS will certainly not agree to hear a case that could actually benefit us and defend our civil rights. We should probably start fresh with a new SCOTUS if we want any of that.