General Discussion

onenote

(46,172 posts)

79. Most people who read the actual decision will understand that the "fake document" didn't play

Wed Jul 5, 2023, 12:12 AM

Jul 2023

a role in the decision and that none of the justices, even the dissenting justices, questioned whether the plaintiffs had the requisite standing to bring a pre-enforcement challenge.

I think the majority got the decision wrong on the merits by treating this as a pure speech case not a conduct case, but there was no disagreement within the court, or the Tenth Circuit, on the plaintiff's standing, without any reference to or reliance on the "fake document" that was submitted after the case had been filed.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

79 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

How did the "fake" case even get to the SC? [View all] Ferrets are Cool Jul 2023 OP

How did the plaintiff have standing.? prodigitalson Jul 2023 #1

Plaintiff had no standing, to the best of my understanding EYESORE 9001 Jul 2023 #4

ok I am now for expaning the court prodigitalson Jul 2023 #11

How will you get rid of Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson? Effete Snob Jul 2023 #22

Did they find standing, or was standing assumed because it reached the SC? JHB Jul 2023 #58

Let me ask you this first Effete Snob Jul 2023 #60

If Sotomayor found standing, then please elaborate. If not, then please answer my queastiion. JHB Jul 2023 #63

Why should they do your research for you? AZSkiffyGeek Jul 2023 #64

Well, a cheery good morning to you too. JHB Jul 2023 #68

. Effete Snob Jul 2023 #65

This is also helpful Effete Snob Jul 2023 #67

Thank you for those JHB Jul 2023 #71

Your understanding is a misunderstanding. onenote Jul 2023 #57

It almost seems as if all four of these "landmark" cases are bogus Walleye Jul 2023 #2

Yes, they're not using logic, they're ruling on faith and feelings as if they are a religion bucolic_frolic Jul 2023 #3

+1 2naSalit Jul 2023 #14

There are no such things as miracles, at least in the religious sense. Sibelius Fan Jul 2023 #43

The simple answer is you are being misled Effete Snob Jul 2023 #5

Thank you and K&R Raven Jul 2023 #8

Thank you malaise Jul 2023 #12

Thank you! I hadn't had a chance to read the opinion when this item surfaced, Ocelot II Jul 2023 #16

This one is going to be a fixed star in the universe of "nonsense people believe" Effete Snob Jul 2023 #19

This should be an OP. There's too much misleading nonsense floating around. Ocelot II Jul 2023 #24

Yeah, well Effete Snob Jul 2023 #28

I posted one, I'm ready for the hits. Ocelot II Jul 2023 #29

Thanks for mentioning 1800s case headnote re precedent for Citizens United. John1956PA Jul 2023 #36

Thanks for the extensive answer. I don't quite understand it all, but TY nonetheless. Ferrets are Cool Jul 2023 #17

Thank you for very useful synopsis. . . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jul 2023 #21

Here's another question: OneGrassRoot Jul 2023 #25

The truth is frequently boring Effete Snob Jul 2023 #27

My mistake is that I view them... OneGrassRoot Jul 2023 #33

Remember Trump's tax returns? Effete Snob Jul 2023 #50

Because inthewind21 Jul 2023 #39

+1 Effete Snob Jul 2023 #51

"reasonable apprehension of prosecution" could a person bring a case against a PD that would ... uponit7771 Jul 2023 #30

No... but if they changed the law to say that couldn't vote until you paid... FBaggins Jul 2023 #34

got it uponit7771 Jul 2023 #35

Yeah, no one got an abortion in Roe v. Wade because it was fucking illegal. W_HAMILTON Jul 2023 #42

You got it! Effete Snob Jul 2023 #47

Was it fast tracked? Baitball Blogger Jul 2023 #6

It began in 2016 FBaggins Jul 2023 #10

Does this look fast? Effete Snob Jul 2023 #13

I wonder how many people here are really going to go through this timeline of the case? JohnSJ Jul 2023 #18

Probably zero Effete Snob Jul 2023 #20

We desperately ForgedCrank Jul 2023 #23

I appreciate what you are doing JohnSJ Jul 2023 #38

Actually, a couple of us have done so. onenote Jul 2023 #59

That makes this all the more unacceptable. Baitball Blogger Jul 2023 #40

Everybody knew it was a hypothetical Shrek Jul 2023 #44

Because you have a load of incorrect "facts" Effete Snob Jul 2023 #46

No one? inthewind21 Jul 2023 #52

Josh Hayley's lawyer wife, Erin, was involved. Quakerfriend Jul 2023 #7

+1 2naSalit Jul 2023 #15

I want to hear more from Neal Katyal malaise Jul 2023 #31

What did he say malaise? I'm no lawyer, but if the ruling is based on phony Greybnk48 Jul 2023 #70

See the link on this thread at #13 malaise Jul 2023 #72

The DOJ? inthewind21 Jul 2023 #53

Lawyers like straining at a gnat and swallowing camels LiberalArkie Jul 2023 #9

Didn't anyone thing to depose the supposed 2 males subjects... Historic NY Jul 2023 #26

*sigh* Because the fake web inquiry was never submitted as evidence in the case. Ocelot II Jul 2023 #32

Minor point Effete Snob Jul 2023 #61

Yes, I should have said it was submitted but was quickly determined to be irrelevant, Ocelot II Jul 2023 #62

Like many things nowadays, they start making a bit more sense after a few days reflection. Silent Type Jul 2023 #37

You realize that the decisions from the lower courts were appealed and reversed by the SC, right? W_HAMILTON Jul 2023 #41

No, I did not. Thank you!! Ferrets are Cool Jul 2023 #49

It can be summed up in two words: some bullshit. Initech Jul 2023 #45

Corruption NotVeryImportant Jul 2023 #48

This inthewind21 Jul 2023 #55

With a little effort, we can keep rehashing this story till the end of the week... brooklynite Jul 2023 #54

Possibly inthewind21 Jul 2023 #56

And Robert Reich's YouTube video.... AZSkiffyGeek Jul 2023 #66

How? The same way a George Santos can make it to Congress B.See Jul 2023 #69

I don't understand the analogy at all. brooklynite Jul 2023 #73

The analogy is the propensity for those of the RIGHT to conveniently ignore and/or EMBRACE B.See Jul 2023 #74

But, as has been endlessly pointed out, there was no fabrication in the Court case brooklynite Jul 2023 #75

Well, at any rate, it's nice to know I can go out and SUE on the basis of what MIGHT happen B.See Jul 2023 #76

You seem surprised. Had you not noticed the lawsuits being filed against new abortion onenote Jul 2023 #77

I think most people can tell the difference between a legitimate concern B.See Jul 2023 #78

Most people who read the actual decision will understand that the "fake document" didn't play onenote Jul 2023 #79