Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Supreme Court says case has no standing!!!! haha

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
mckeown1128 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 01:00 PM
Original message
Supreme Court says case has no standing!!!! haha
No link yet...but I'll add one in when I find it. You'll have to trust me for now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
1. I'm not so sure that is a good thing
I would rather them rule on the merits and say that the case/evidence is nonsense.

Now some other jackass who claims to have standing is just going to file another lawsuit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tularetom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. To say the case had no merit they would first have to say the plaintiff had standing
I don't think they want to open that can of worms.

Eventually it may come down to the outcome you envision but when that happens it will be shitcanned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Puzzler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Anyone care to see how the little freepers are reacting?
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. They aren't the court of original jurisdiction - appeals courts
including SCOTUS rule as to the law, not the facts - that is the job of the original court of jurisdiction which is the trier of fact.

Doug D.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonLP24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
2. I was actually hoping they would take the cash
So they could crush this rumor that's been proven to be false by factcheck.org and snopes.com already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gothmog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
4. A per curium opinion on standing is a ruling on the merits
If the SCOTUS issues a per curium opinion on the standing issue, then all of the cases pending and those that the freepers are promising to file each and every time President Obama issues an executive order or signs a bill will become moot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phx_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 02:04 PM
Response to Original message
6. Poor Freepers.
I wonder if it hurts to be so stupid and desparate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 02:16 PM
Response to Original message
8. Doesn't that repudiate the lower courts' acceptance??
If SCOTUS is saying the plaintiffs don't have standing, then the suit should have been rejected for that reason in the lower courts. Did they?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. But the plaintiff had to spend a lot of money. helped the economy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-06-08 04:41 AM
Response to Reply #8
19. no, the scotus ruling affirms the lower court's rejection of the suit
The lower court (in this case,the NJ Supreme Court) threw out the lawsuit on standing grounds andth nutjob who brought the case went to the US Supreme Court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
prostock69 Donating Member (365 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
9. Yeah!! I have been worried about this all day. Thanks!
You must work in a law office and have access to this information. I used to be a paralegal (now stay-at-home-mom) and I miss having "those" connections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wiggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 02:22 PM
Response to Original message
10. Says something about C. Thomas, doesn't it. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-06-08 04:44 AM
Response to Reply #10
20. actually, all it says about thomas is that he followed standard court procedure
Edited on Sat Dec-06-08 04:47 AM by onenote
If he had granted the petition when it was presented to him (which was within his authority to do), that would've said something about him. But he just did what any justice would have done under the circumstances -- those circumstances being that a petition had been denied by one justice and then the petitioner had taken the petition to another justice (Thomas in this instance). Standard practice in that situation is for the second justice to refer the matter to the full court so as to spare everyone the headache of having to deal with a serial petitioner.

If you don't believe me, consider the words of the author of the leading treatise on supreme court practice:

"If the assigned Justice denies an application, then the application can be re-submitted to any other Justice...under modern practice, renewed applications usually are submitted to the entire Court for resolution."
http://www.appellate.net/docketreports/In_Chambers_Opin... (page xi)

My point isn't to defend thomas, who is a disgrace and has no business being on the court. Its to point out the facts in this particular situation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
political_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 02:24 PM
Response to Original message
12. That is good news. Thank goodness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. pD This whole thing was never grounded in reality -
It is nothing but wishful thinking on the part of those who can not abide the thought of a black person as President.

FWIW, I think Thomas knew this would happen and his action made it possible.

mark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
political_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Old Mark, thank you for saying that.
I agree with you on the part that there are certain machinations going about because some of the population cannot deal with their fear or racial prejudice when it comes to a person of color in power. The sentiment was expressed as far back as the Primaries when it centered around the meme of Mr. Obama being "not experienced" enough. Even back then, people do not recognize how much restraint the President-Elect had to undergo as insults and beligerent things regarding race had been flung at him on a daily basis.

The birth certificate brouhaha is just something else down the road of all the racist stupidity that is going to happen before and after his time in the Oval Office.

Although I have been very receptive to all views about Mr. Thomas since the first announcement of what he did, I still think he is a swarmy character because of his positions and the company that he keeps.

But, one time down the road it will be revealed what Thomas' true motives were behind this entire exercise. I know that there are some who claim that this was normal operating procedure for a SC Justice. But, he did not do this action being in a vacuum.

If one argues that this is business as usual on Thomas' part, I wonder if they would say the same thing about the SCOTUS vote regarding the 2000 Election. That did not happen neutrally either--especially if one had a son working in the law firm that represented one of the opponents (Scalia's son).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-06-08 01:50 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. I don't know about Thomas's business as usual.
I'm trying to give him benefit of the doubt and assume he tried to do a good thing.

"Even a blind pig sometimes finds an acorn."

Of course I have been wrong before - I'm not really a fan of politics - I just came here for the election and kind of got stuck.

mark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 02:56 PM
Response to Original message
14. So I guess for entertainment we could mosey on over and watch heads explode.
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
On the Road Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 04:01 PM
Response to Original message
15. Although the Supreme Court May Wish Otherwise,
I don't know why a citizen doesn't have standing to file a case like this. Who WOULD have standing? I think they should have refused to hear it anyway, but because of the lack of evidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-06-08 04:49 AM
Response to Reply #15
21. the merits of the case weren't before the court
and wouldn't have been if they had agreed to hear it. The only issue was whether the NJ Supreme Court erred in holding the nutjob plaintiff had standing. The SCOTUS can't just decide to hear the merits of a case when the merits have never been considered by a lower court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thickasabrick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 07:22 PM
Response to Original message
17. No, they merely released the two cases they would consider.
No official rejection has been forthcoming - although you would think they would do that just to get the freepers to shut up.

It is being "assumed" that this means a rejection. I'm hopeful that assumption is correct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 22nd 2014, 03:12 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC