The whole is there an injury/controversy thing is a mess, but I’m not even talking about that.
You should be, because that’s literally what the entire decision is about. Direct stake requires that the party suffer an actual injury, which they clearly didn’t. You may not feel that it’s fair, but that principal’s a basic tenet of procedure.
^ Meh. Most courtwatchers, particularly on SCOTUSblog, predicted that exact result a while back, and for a good reason: it was the obvious result, in my opinion.
Once Prop 8 was approved and became a constitutional amendment, its proponents, as you referred to in context of the statute, went back to being mere private citizens with no enforcement powers over the bill, nor any authority to protect it that differentiates them from any other Californian citizen. Further, the case that dissent relies upon referred to state officials who represented the bill whent he government failed to do so, as opposed to private officials like in the instant case. Arguing for Prop 8 didn’t make these guys state officials, and the Court has never recognized private citizens having standing for a generalized grievance.
When the cases originated, respondents had standing (obviously and undisputed; they were the ones in the actual controversy). Respondents won, no longer had injury to redress, they were donezo. When petitioners appealed (without being ordered by the court to do so), the only thing they contested was the constitutionality of Prop 8, without being having any injury to seek relief from nor any direct stake in the case.
tl;dr- Disliking a law isn’t enough to give you standing. I’m really genuinely curious where you believe that the injury and controversy elements are fulfilled by these these specific petitioners.
I tip-toed back into my bathroom and peered skeptically into the tub.
10/10 read this as “peed skeptically into the tub”
Gave this chick my number. She asked why there were only six digits. Told Crazy Sherlock Fuggin Holmes over here to take a walk.
Joke’s on you, small peens are FaF
Sounds like you were in quite the pickle.
Taking her out to a nice seafood dinner at Red Lobster. FaF.
weirdest boner right now
All the Nice Moves.
Dongs over an inch. TTryHardM.
Mississippi. FaF.
This is like Eminem’s last battle rap in 8 Mile.
Shhhhhh. Let them have their fun.
SANTA’S REAL, YOU SLANDEROUS SUCCUBUS
The whole is there an injury/controversy thing is a mess, but I’m not even talking about that.
You should be, because that’s literally what the entire decision is about. Direct stake requires that the party suffer an actual injury, which they clearly didn’t. You may not feel that it’s fair, but that principal’s a basic tenet of procedure.
Doubling your wardrobe. FaF.
Also, I’m at work and sneaking typing between switching tabs, so there’s a decent chance that mess is riddled with typos and jumpy logic.
So, I’ll make it simple.
Private citizens + generalized grievance + no actual controversy ≠ standing
^ Meh. Most courtwatchers, particularly on SCOTUSblog, predicted that exact result a while back, and for a good reason: it was the obvious result, in my opinion.
Once Prop 8 was approved and became a constitutional amendment, its proponents, as you referred to in context of the statute, went back to being mere private citizens with no enforcement powers over the bill, nor any authority to protect it that differentiates them from any other Californian citizen. Further, the case that dissent relies upon referred to state officials who represented the bill whent he government failed to do so, as opposed to private officials like in the instant case. Arguing for Prop 8 didn’t make these guys state officials, and the Court has never recognized private citizens having standing for a generalized grievance.
When the cases originated, respondents had standing (obviously and undisputed; they were the ones in the actual controversy). Respondents won, no longer had injury to redress, they were donezo. When petitioners appealed (without being ordered by the court to do so), the only thing they contested was the constitutionality of Prop 8, without being having any injury to seek relief from nor any direct stake in the case.
tl;dr- Disliking a law isn’t enough to give you standing. I’m really genuinely curious where you believe that the injury and controversy elements are fulfilled by these these specific petitioners.
^ Which, by Mississippi standards, would be the equivalent of getting a doctorate.
Anything over an inch. TTryHardM,
Being a boobs, butt, or legs guy. NF.
Being a package guy. TFTC.