Who died and made the Supreme Court a Congress?

[Lonestarblue]

33. I believe the SC has set some dangerous precedents with recent decisions--precedents that will

be fully exploited by right-wing religious and other organizations. I have always understood that actual harm is a requirement for the harmed party to file a civil lawsuit against the person or entity that caused the harm. It is the harm that grants standing to file the case.

From the US Courts website:

“To begin a civil lawsuit in federal court, the plaintiff files a complaint with the court and “serves” a copy of the complaint on the defendant. The complaint describes the plaintiff’s damages or injury, explains how the defendant caused the harm, shows that the court has jurisdiction, and asks the court to order relief. A plaintiff may seek money to compensate for the damages, or may ask the court to order the defendant to stop the conduct that is causing the harm. The court may also order other types of relief, such as a declaration of the legal rights of the plaintiff in a particular situation.” https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/types-cases/civil-cases

Neither the web designer nor the student loan case provided any evidence of actual harm. It was totally hypothetical. The case of the web designer seemed truly ridiculous, along the lines of “I’ve never designed a wedding website, but if I decided to go into that business and if I were asked to design a site for a same-sex wedding and if I said no because of my religious beliefs (bigotry), and if the same-sex couple complained to the state, and if the state of Colorado filed a suit against me for discrimination, and if I were found guilty, I might suffer harm for breaking state and federal laws.” A lot of ifs in that case based on absolutely no harm that is the basis of civil law.

The student loan case also supposed possible harm to a loan provider even though analyses showed no loss of profits with the federal government paying the loan. Again, no actual harm that is the basis for a lawsuit.

The precedent the Court has now set is that anyone can bring a civil lawsuit based on possible future harm not on actual harm. Another case that supports this precedent is the Texas abortion law. It set a couple of precedents—the right to bring suit against anyone aiding a woman in Texas to have an abortion, even if the person suing has no relationship with the woman and has suffered no harm. For example, if a vigilante is able to find out the name of a friend who drove the woman to a clinic in New Mexico, the person can sue to collect $10,000 upon proof of the events. The concept of standing has been turned on its ear. The SC refused to stay this law and once they overturned Roe refused to do anything about its vigilante aspect and the precedent of total strangers being able to sue for a civil settlement in an action to which they were not even a party!

These cases are not just about a special carve out to privilege the religious right. They are also setting precedent for future right-wing cases to be brought to the court to overturn as much of civil rights legislation as possible.