Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRoberts, Scalia, Breyer, Ginsberg, and Kagan agreed the petitioner did not have standing
While Kennedy, Alito, Thomas, and Sotomayor held they did.
Basically, Roberts wanted to punt, and had the deciding vote there.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
7 replies, 1038 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (0)
ReplyReply to this post
7 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Roberts, Scalia, Breyer, Ginsberg, and Kagan agreed the petitioner did not have standing (Original Post)
Recursion
Jun 2013
OP
Good lord it is. Most of the national security snooper state issues wind up getting rejected for...
Poll_Blind
Jun 2013
#3
I wonder if marriage equality would be the law of the land if Brown and Harris had defended it
LonePirate
Jun 2013
#4
Could be. Though I give justices more credit for honesty than a lot of court watchers do
Recursion
Jun 2013
#7
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)1. 'standing' is the abused modern way to avoid making a real decision. n/t
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)3. Good lord it is. Most of the national security snooper state issues wind up getting rejected for...
..."standing" along with a number of the cases regarding our secret assassination list.
PB
Richardo
(38,391 posts)2. Wait wait wait wait wait....
Thomas broke with Scalia? THERE'S your lede!!
Recursion
(56,582 posts)5. Standing and Court authority are their two main areas of disagreement
Scalia has frequently joined decisions with immediate "left" consequences because his long-term goal is to weaken the Federal judiciary as much as possible.
LonePirate
(13,424 posts)4. I wonder if marriage equality would be the law of the land if Brown and Harris had defended it
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)6. I suspect Sotomayor dissented
because she wanted to take the case to strike it down.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)7. Could be. Though I give justices more credit for honesty than a lot of court watchers do
I think a lot of cases have no obvious answers, and for the most part the opinions I have read make a strong case for their position.