Supreme Court says case has no standing!!!! haha

[mckeown1128]

No link yet...but I'll add one in when I find it. You'll have to trust me for now.

[bluestateguy]

1. I'm not so sure that is a good thing

I would rather them rule on the merits and say that the case/evidence is nonsense.

Now some other jackass who claims to have standing is just going to file another lawsuit.

[tularetom]

3. To say the case had no merit they would first have to say the plaintiff had standing

I don't think they want to open that can of worms.

Eventually it may come down to the outcome you envision but when that happens it will be shitcanned.

[Puzzler]

5. Anyone care to see how the little freepers are reacting?

.

[ddeclue]

7. They aren't the court of original jurisdiction - appeals courts

including SCOTUS rule as to the law, not the facts - that is the job of the original court of jurisdiction which is the trier of fact.

Doug D.

[JonLP24]

2. I was actually hoping they would take the cash

So they could crush this rumor that's been proven to be false by factcheck.org and snopes.com already.

[Gothmog]

4. A per curium opinion on standing is a ruling on the merits

If the SCOTUS issues a per curium opinion on the standing issue, then all of the cases pending and those that the freepers are promising to file each and every time President Obama issues an executive order or signs a bill will become moot.

[Phx_Dem]

6. Poor Freepers.

I wonder if it hurts to be so stupid and desparate?

[TahitiNut]

8. Doesn't that repudiate the lower courts' acceptance??

If SCOTUS is saying the plaintiffs don't have standing, then the suit should have been rejected for that reason in the lower courts. Did they?

[alfredo]

11. But the plaintiff had to spend a lot of money. helped the economy

[onenote]

19. no, the scotus ruling affirms the lower court's rejection of the suit

The lower court (in this case,the NJ Supreme Court) threw out the lawsuit on standing grounds andth nutjob who brought the case went to the US Supreme Court.

[prostock69]

9. Yeah!! I have been worried about this all day. Thanks!

You must work in a law office and have access to this information. I used to be a paralegal (now stay-at-home-mom) and I miss having "those" connections.

[wiggs]

10. Says something about C. Thomas, doesn't it. nt

[onenote]

20. actually, all it says about thomas is that he followed standard court procedure

If he had granted the petition when it was presented to him (which was within his authority to do), that would've said something about him. But he just did what any justice would have done under the circumstances -- those circumstances being that a petition had been denied by one justice and then the petitioner had taken the petition to another justice (Thomas in this instance). Standard practice in that situation is for the second justice to refer the matter to the full court so as to spare everyone the headache of having to deal with a serial petitioner.

If you don't believe me, consider the words of the author of the leading treatise on supreme court practice:

"If the assigned Justice denies an application, then the application can be re-submitted to any other Justice...under modern practice, renewed applications usually are submitted to the entire Court for resolution."
http://www.appellate.net/docketreports/In_Chambers_Opinions_v2_scdr3_2004.pdf (page xi)

My point isn't to defend thomas, who is a disgrace and has no business being on the court. Its to point out the facts in this particular situation.

[political_Dem]

12. That is good news. Thank goodness.

[old mark]

13. pD This whole thing was never grounded in reality -

It is nothing but wishful thinking on the part of those who can not abide the thought of a black person as President.

FWIW, I think Thomas knew this would happen and his action made it possible.

mark

[political_Dem]

16. Old Mark, thank you for saying that.

I agree with you on the part that there are certain machinations going about because some of the population cannot deal with their fear or racial prejudice when it comes to a person of color in power. The sentiment was expressed as far back as the Primaries when it centered around the meme of Mr. Obama being "not experienced" enough. Even back then, people do not recognize how much restraint the President-Elect had to undergo as insults and beligerent things regarding race had been flung at him on a daily basis.

The birth certificate brouhaha is just something else down the road of all the racist stupidity that is going to happen before and after his time in the Oval Office.

Although I have been very receptive to all views about Mr. Thomas since the first announcement of what he did, I still think he is a swarmy character because of his positions and the company that he keeps.

But, one time down the road it will be revealed what Thomas' true motives were behind this entire exercise. I know that there are some who claim that this was normal operating procedure for a SC Justice. But, he did not do this action being in a vacuum.

If one argues that this is business as usual on Thomas' part, I wonder if they would say the same thing about the SCOTUS vote regarding the 2000 Election. That did not happen neutrally either--especially if one had a son working in the law firm that represented one of the opponents (Scalia's son).

[old mark]

18. I don't know about Thomas's business as usual.

I'm trying to give him benefit of the doubt and assume he tried to do a good thing.

"Even a blind pig sometimes finds an acorn."

Of course I have been wrong before - I'm not really a fan of politics - I just came here for the election and kind of got stuck.

mark

[Vinca]

14. So I guess for entertainment we could mosey on over and watch heads explode.

:rofl:

[On the Road]

15. Although the Supreme Court May Wish Otherwise,

I don't know why a citizen doesn't have standing to file a case like this. Who WOULD have standing? I think they should have refused to hear it anyway, but because of the lack of evidence.

[onenote]

21. the merits of the case weren't before the court

and wouldn't have been if they had agreed to hear it. The only issue was whether the NJ Supreme Court erred in holding the nutjob plaintiff had standing. The SCOTUS can't just decide to hear the merits of a case when the merits have never been considered by a lower court.

[Thickasabrick]

17. No, they merely released the two cases they would consider.

No official rejection has been forthcoming - although you would think they would do that just to get the freepers to shut up.

It is being "assumed" that this means a rejection. I'm hopeful that assumption is correct.