General Discussion

LetMyPeopleVote

(182,233 posts)

14. There was no true case or controversy

Reply to allegorical oracle (Original post)

Sat Jul 1, 2023, 12:45 AM

Jul 2023

One of the requirements for jurisdiction for a court to render a decision is the requirement of a case or controversy. Courts do not render advisory opinions.

Link to tweet

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

38 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Something's curious about the web designer's SCOTUS case... [View all] allegorical oracle Jun 2023 OP

Jeepers. Stewart needs to find a cutthroat attorney to sue Smith and the ADF. tanyev Jun 2023 #1

Check out this thread: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100218053777 mainer Jun 2023 #2

Can you sue the Supreme Court for basing a decision on fake information? Just kidding! Lonestarblue Jun 2023 #3

They are illegitimate, ignore the court until they resign! Bluethroughu Jun 2023 #4

Unfortunately, the decision wasn't based on that information. onenote Jul 2023 #16

SCOTUS has done this before. slightlv Jun 2023 #5

Agree. I think the Sorry Six decide what laws they want to overturn then shop for or make up LoisB Jun 2023 #6

Exactly what I was saying... slightlv Jun 2023 #8

Nah. I just copied your thoughts. LoisB Jun 2023 #9

Well, groups like the ADF and the Federalist Society do all the legwork, tanyev Jun 2023 #10

Yep. Pretty much to justice what ALEC is to legislation. LoisB Jun 2023 #11

Can recall a call from Thomas after the Dobbs case soliciting others to come forward with cases allegorical oracle Jul 2023 #22

Am wondering who the defender Elenis is. Didn't think the Supremes would take a case if allegorical oracle Jun 2023 #12

Pre-enforcement standing is a well-recognized legal principle onenote Jul 2023 #17

Interesting. Chris Hayes last night (Fri.) showed a quote that I can only mention about how allegorical oracle Jul 2023 #23

Lorie Smith (303 Creative LLC) sued Colorado (naming a bunch of Colorado officials Hortensis Jun 2023 #7

Thank you for that. I missed your post (and wish I'd checked before searching. Never saw a allegorical oracle Jul 2023 #24

Identity Theft NowISeetheLight Jun 2023 #13

Good point - maybe her identity has been hijacked FakeNoose Jul 2023 #26

There was no true case or controversy LetMyPeopleVote Jul 2023 #14

Chasten Buttigieg is a wonderful person but he's not a lawyer onenote Jul 2023 #18

I am a lawyer and there was no real case or controversy here LetMyPeopleVote Jul 2023 #20

So why didn't Sotomayor, Kagan, and Ketanji Jackson mention standing? onenote Jul 2023 #21

This was a manufactured case LetMyPeopleVote Jul 2023 #29

And you think Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson Brown were accomplices? onenote Jul 2023 #31

Do you tire of being wrong? LetMyPeopleVote Jul 2023 #32

I'm happy to admit when i'm wrong. In this instance, i'm not wrong. onenote Jul 2023 #35

Are you a member of the bar? LetMyPeopleVote Jul 2023 #36

Yes. Forty-five years of practice, including a few cases before the Supreme Court. onenote Jul 2023 #37

The issues about the lack of a case or controversy was evidently not before the SCOTUS LetMyPeopleVote Jul 2023 #38

Procedure exists to force the Supreme Court to rehear 'made up' wedding website case: Neal Katyal LetMyPeopleVote Jul 2023 #34

Iokiyar. And how does this constitute true standing and actual harm? lostnfound Jul 2023 #15

Pre-enforcement standing is a well-recognized legal principle among lawyers. onenote Jul 2023 #19

So if I get it in my crazy brain one night that some individual intends to murder me, can I sue allegorical oracle Jul 2023 #25

No. onenote Jul 2023 #27

Actually the phrase alone is self--explanatory lostnfound Jul 2023 #28

Yeah there's something about this that stinks and I can't quite put my finger on it. Initech Jul 2023 #30

Man cited in Supreme Court LGBTQ rights case says he was never involved LetMyPeopleVote Jul 2023 #33