Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
27. But the point I was trying to make, was the Court COULD have avoided the case
Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:33 PM
Jan 2012

The point I was trying to make with Roe was that the Court COULD have declined to hear the case for Roe no longer had standing for she had had the abortion OR had given birth by the time the case reached the Supreme Court.

I was using ROE was an HOW standing can be used by the Judges to avoid cases the Court wants to avoid. In the case of ROE, the Court decided the hear the case and thus ruled that Roe had standing.

The Supreme Court has a long history of avoiding issues it dislikes. One of the earliest example of this was during the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson in 1868, the court REFUSED to rule on the act Johnson was impeached for violating, the Tenure in Office Act. Some 20 years later, when the Act was almost long forgotten AND the President and Congress were no longer at each other throats, the Court did rule on the Tenure in Office Act, and ruled it unconstitutional. Thus by one Vote of a Senator we could have seen the removal of a President for violating an act, that the Supreme Court later found unconstitutional for it restricted HOW the President could run the executive branch of Government (i.e. the President would have been removed for doing something the Constitution permitted him and him alone to do).

The court has several other legal rules it can use to avoid making a decision that is opposed by Congress and the President. The Political Issue case is one of the best known (for it clearly states the issue is Political and thus to be decided by Congress, thus it is a way to move a controversial subject from the courts to Congress).

The Standing issue, is not the clear putting of an issue to Congress as in the Political issue case, but it is a way to avoid a case the Court has no desire to decide at the present time. The standing issue can also be waived (given you still have two sides to an issue) if the Court really wants to hear the case. Thus Standing can be a real issue in a case, or an excuse to avoid an issue (and sometimes both).

Recommendations

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

Good, let's hope it's found unconstitutional Ter Jan 2012 #1
+1000000000 nt Joe Shlabotnik Jan 2012 #5
Doesnt someone have to be harmed by the bill to get into the court system? rhett o rick Jan 2012 #19
Correct, a person MUST have "Standing" but in this case the Reporter clearly does happyslug Jan 2012 #21
Remember that the courts IMO fail miserably in both the Hamdi and Padilla cases. rhett o rick Jan 2012 #22
As I recall Roe in Constitutional Law, the reasoning wasn't that she might want an abortion in the 24601 Jan 2012 #23
Don't confuse the issue with actual law. Or facts. msanthrope Jan 2012 #26
But the point I was trying to make, was the Court COULD have avoided the case happyslug Jan 2012 #27
Wrong. He does not have standing. Read Lujan v. Defenders and get back to us. msanthrope Jan 2012 #24
I am talking the POLITICS of the Court happyslug Jan 2012 #28
So, you don't have the law, but are arguing politics? msanthrope Jan 2012 #29
If politics or conjecture don't come into play why did the SC give Bush standing Uncle Joe Jan 2012 #30
Because Mr. Bush claimed an actual, direct harm that could be redressed. msanthrope Jan 2012 #31
How could Bush be harmed in a disputed, two man, state run election, and Gore not be harmed by Uncle Joe Jan 2012 #32
None of the other issues you bring up have anything to do with msanthrope Jan 2012 #33
I understand you agree with the dissent, my only point is that De Facto by Uncle Joe Jan 2012 #34
So you want SCOTUS to find Hedges has standing for political reasons msanthrope Jan 2012 #35
It isn't a question of what I want, it's a question of what is. Uncle Joe Jan 2012 #36
War Powers Resolution EVDebs Jan 2012 #2
It is ilegal and they know it lovuian Jan 2012 #3
The constitutionality of a law is determined by the court system. rhett o rick Jan 2012 #20
Glad to hear it. tblue Jan 2012 #4
No need to worry, O is just playing 12 dimensional chess JJW Jan 2012 #6
This is badly timed. If the current right-wing SCOTUS finds it Constitutional, it will be very hard rhett o rick Jan 2012 #7
SCOTUS knows its ilegal too and if they vote lovuian Jan 2012 #8
The SCOTUS is acting well beyond their Constitutional duties. They are out of control. rhett o rick Jan 2012 #10
+1000 Wind Dancer Jan 2012 #25
What do you do when the supreme court becomes illegitimate? Mosaic Jan 2012 #9
Guillotines. nm rhett o rick Jan 2012 #11
This issue goes beyond right and left Ter Jan 2012 #17
So do you think the SCOTUS would rule against it? nm rhett o rick Jan 2012 #18
Reality check JJW Jan 2012 #12
How great would it be Iwillnevergiveup Jan 2012 #13
kr Norrin Radd Jan 2012 #14
So that's why the recent character assassination against Hedges has been occuring MNBrewer Jan 2012 #15
If someone commits a crime christx30 Jan 2012 #16
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Journalist Chris Hedges S...»Reply #27