General Discussion

Recursion

(56,582 posts) Wed Jun 26, 2013, 10:35 AM Jun 2013

Roberts, 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.

7 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Roberts, Scalia, Breyer, Ginsberg, and Kagan agreed the petitioner did not have standing (Original Post) Recursion Jun 2013 OP

'standing' is the abused modern way to avoid making a real decision. n/t PoliticAverse Jun 2013 #1

Good lord it is. Most of the national security snooper state issues wind up getting rejected for... Poll_Blind Jun 2013 #3

Wait wait wait wait wait.... Richardo Jun 2013 #2

Standing and Court authority are their two main areas of disagreement Recursion Jun 2013 #5

I wonder if marriage equality would be the law of the land if Brown and Harris had defended it LonePirate Jun 2013 #4

I suspect Sotomayor dissented Pab Sungenis Jun 2013 #6

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

Reply to Recursion (Original post)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 10:37 AM

Jun 2013

Poll_Blind

(23,864 posts)

3. Good lord it is. Most of the national security snooper state issues wind up getting rejected for...

Reply to PoliticAverse (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 10:41 AM

Jun 2013

..."standing" along with a number of the cases regarding our secret assassination list.

PB

Richardo

(38,391 posts)

2. Wait wait wait wait wait....

Reply to Recursion (Original post)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 10:39 AM

Jun 2013

Thomas broke with Scalia? THERE'S your lede!!

Recursion

(56,582 posts)

5. Standing and Court authority are their two main areas of disagreement

Reply to Richardo (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 10:41 AM

Jun 2013

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

(13,402 posts)

4. I wonder if marriage equality would be the law of the land if Brown and Harris had defended it

Reply to Recursion (Original post)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 10:41 AM

Jun 2013

Pab Sungenis

(9,612 posts)

6. I suspect Sotomayor dissented

Reply to Recursion (Original post)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 10:43 AM

Jun 2013

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

Reply to Pab Sungenis (Reply #6)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 10:51 AM

Jun 2013

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.

Reply to this discussion