Ongoing discussion of SCOTUS cases

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
14,279
Reaction score
20,537
Location
Midwest
Offline
With the increased scrutiny due to recent revelations in the press I thought maybe we can use a SCOTUS thread. We can discuss the impending Senate investigation and the legislation proposed today by Murkowski and King in the Senate that will formalize ethical guidelines.

We can also use this thread to highlight cases that possibly don’t deserve their own thread, like the following.

I saw this case today, and I cannot believe the US Government is allowed to do this. Unreasonable search and seizure? The examples he gives in the rest of the thread are just sickening:

 
I think you have it backwards.

It wasn't the populations failure to vote for HRC. It was the DNP failure to have a real primary that failed the people. This is a simple concept. If you want buy in, have an actual election. I've been through this with more then one of you on this board. The fault lies not with the voting base, but with the candidate.

2016 was a case study in hubris, not petty division. That's what lead to this moment. PRIDE

We aren't going to agree then. I'm familiar with your views about the process that election and about Clinton. If it's not complaints about hubris, or perceptions of unfairness for how the party treated an Independent-turned-Democrat for the primaries, it will just be other things. And that's where my point is; anybody who is serious about progress had better understand the consequences of not supporting the candidates who will get them closer to their goals in general elections.

I would have voted for Sanders and anybody else who got the Democratic nomination that year because I understood the consequences of not doing so.
 
Last edited:
We aren't going to agree then. I'm familiar with your views about the process that election and about Clinton. If it's not complaints about hubris, or perceptions of unfairness for how the party treated an Independent-turned-Democrat for the primaries, it will just be other things. And that's where my point is; anybody who is serious about progress had better understand the consequences of not supporting the candidates who will get them closer to their goals in general elections.

I would have voted for Sanders and anybody else who got the Democratic nomination that year because I understood the consequences of not doing so.
I agree. My philosophy is that it's best to vote for someone instead of against someone, so I remind myself that voting against fascists is actually voting for democracy. As long as our election system is a first past the post, zero-sum process, not voting against a fascist is basically giving a half of a vote to a fascist.

The rest is just how I see where we are at and none of it has anything to do with anyone in particular. It's just my general impression from what I am experiencing first hand, hearing from others and seeing in the news.

We dealt with the same rise of global fascism that resulted from the Industrial Age that is currently happening as a result of the Information Age. Fascists stoke and exploit fear to seize power. The disruptions of a new age create uncertainty and anxiety. Fascists prey on that uncertainty and anxiety to seize power.

I think we're at a tipping point right now in the US and that over the next 2 years we will see either a rapid descent into more extreme fascism or a rapid ascent into greater egalitarianism. Whichever way we go, I think there will be an increase in upheaval and violence over the next few years.

I'm optimistic that those of us who want equality for all will prevail over those who want the opposite. Part of my optimism is because it took humankind over a century to unite against and start reining in the fascists of the Industrial Age, but it has only taken us over a decade to unite against and start reining in the fascists of the Information Age. I think we'll be in a better place in a few years than we’ve ever been in before.

A large part of my optimism comes from walking the picket lines. Nearly every car that passes by blows their horn in support, including studio employees as they cross the picket lines going to and from work at the studios. Food trucks and caterers regularly deliver free food to the various picket sites. Local owned businesses are offering meaningful discounts to striking union members. People from all walks of life are donating money to foundations that are providing financial relief to those of us who need it the most while we strike. Members from almost every union in the region are picketing with us. Teamsters, teachers, strippers (that’s not a typo, there’s a newly formed strippers’ union) railroad workers, and on and on are picketing with us. CBS laid off hundreds of janitors. We picket together and we added their cause to our signage, chants and messaging.

All kinds of people from all walks of life are working together to provide meaningful support (not just lip service) to us while we push back against corporate abuse and exploitation. There’s a universal sense that we are all in this together. It’s a “first they came for them, and we all came together to stand with them” moment. This unity is scaring the hell out of the fascists, because they know they have to keep us divided to conquer us and have power over us.

I know that when any of us share these type of positive thoughts, observations and sentiments, their indoctrinated devotees show up to intimidate, harass, dismiss, distract and deceive us with their full-throated, incessant barking. They're relentless and pesky little buggers, I'll give them that.

Don't let them get you down or shout you down. Remind yourself that they are just loud mouthed, neurotic Chihuahuas. Remind yourself that they are the new minority and everything that they do and say is their desperate attempt to convince themselves they are not the new minority. Remind yourself that the only thing they have a say in is how violent the inevitable end to their power will be. I hope most of them choose the cowardly path, like bullies so often do when the rest of us stand united against them.

The most powerful tool of unity we have against the fascists is the power to vote. Make sure you vote against them. Make sure everyone you know votes against them. Let's all double our votes by getting just one person, who we know (who isn’t going to vote or can’t vote without help, and who also won’t vote for a fascist) to vote. Do whatever you have to get that one person to vote, even if you have to drag them kicking and screaming to the voting booth...just kidding on that...mostly kidding. Every election matters, but this next election is going to be a turning point in American history. Let's all do everything we can to make sure it's a turn toward equality for all people in all ways and a resounding rejection of fascism. We have the power to end this BS, so let’s pull together and git’er done!

Once we do that, then it’ll be safe for us to civilly disagree with each other over nuanced differences in philosophy and policy making.

Now if you will excuse me, I need to put this soap box back in the closet.
 
During last October’s oral arguments in the supreme court’s affirmative action cases, Justice John Roberts interrupted Harvard’s lawyer, Seth Waxman, to ask: “Isn’t that what the case is about, the discrimination against Asian Americans?”

In a word, no.

The decisions in the twin cases filed against Harvard and the University of North Carolina did not turn significantly on the alleged harms done to Asian Americans, but rather on how the justices interpreted the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

Instead Asian Americans – who, in the American racial hierarchy, have always been placed between complicity and justice – were mainly there for display, as mostly white lawyers on both sides Asiansplained their history and positions to the court.

After failing in their 2015 case Fisher v University of Texas to end affirmative action, calling it discriminatory against whites, Ed Blum and his former plaintiff, a white woman named Abigail Fisher, co-founded a group they called Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA). They pivoted to highlighting Asian American plaintiffs, gambling correctly that the court would be more likely to accept that a historically excluded minority group had been discriminated against by affirmative action.

They adopted the tactics, methods, and even some of the arguments of pro-affirmative action Asian Americans who had been fighting universities for decades. They tapped into a network of conservative Asian American activists, funded and supported by groups like the Pacific Legal Foundation, a conservative thinktank. Mike Yukong Zhao and his Asian American Coalition for Education mobilized immigrant parents for demonstrations on WeChat. These efforts were furthered by waves of disinformation.

But in order to win at court, SFFA deployed some stage trickery – disappearing Asian Americans at just the right moment. From the district court to the supreme court, SFFA produced exactly zero students and Asian Americans to testify. Even after forcing Harvard to turn over nearly 100,000 pages of documents, they could not produce a single individual case of discrimination.

Harvard introduced four students, two of whom were Asian American. Sally Chen, a low-income, first-generation Chinese immigrant student accepted in 2015, testified that she was accepted amid a vast pool of valedictorians with perfect SATs and 4.5 GPAs only because of the school’s holistic admissions process. She was able to tell her story, be seen, and valued. Judge Sotomayor noted this in her dissent, writing: “At bottom, race-conscious admissions benefit all students, including racial minorities. That includes the Asian American community.”

SFFA stacked its legal team with former clerks of Judge Clarence Thomas. Then it gave its case gravitas with a blinkered history of anti-Asian discrimination that ignored everything after the 1940s. Thomas later included this version of events in his concurring opinion.…….

 
The US supreme court turned away a case on Friday challenging Mississippi’s rules around voting rights for people with felony convictions, leaving intact a policy implemented more than a century ago with the explicit goal of preventing Black people from voting.

Those convicted of any one of 23 specific feloniesin Mississippi permanently lose the right to vote. The list is rooted in the state’s 1890 constitutional convention, where delegates chose disenfranchising crimes that they believed Black people were more likely to commit. “We came here to exclude the negro. Nothing short of this will answer,” the president of the convention said at the time.

The crimes, which include bribery, theft, carjacking, bigamy and timber larceny, have remained largely the same since then; Mississippi voters amended it remove burglary in 1950 and added murder and rape in 1968.

It continued to have a staggering effect in Mississippi. Sixteen per cent of the Black voting-age population remains blocked from casting a ballot, as well as 10% of the overall voting age population, according to an estimate by The Sentencing Project, a criminal justice non-profit. The state is about 38% Black, but Black people make up more than half of Mississippi’s disenfranchised population.

Challengers to the law argued that the policy was unconstitutional because it bore the “discriminatory butt area” from the 1890 constitution. One of the plaintiffs was Roy Harness, a social worker in his late 60s who is permanently barred from voting because he was convicted of forgery decades ago. Forgery was one of the original crimes included in the list of disenfranchising offenses.

“It makes me feel bad. I’ve served my country, nation … got a degree and still can’t vote, no matter what you do to prove yourself,” Harness told the Guardian in 2022.

Once a person loses their right to vote in Mississippi it is essentially impossible to get it back. To do so, a disenfranchised person must get the legislature to approve an individualized bill on their behalf by a supermajority in both chambers and then have the governor approve the bill. There are no online instructions or applications, and lawmakers can reject or deny an application for any reason.……



First, she wrote, even though Mississippi voters removed a crime in 1950 and added two more in 1968, the substance of many of the original crimes from 1890 remained intact. That means that the list is still discriminatory, she wrote in a dissent that was joined by Sotomayor.

“The “remaining crimes” from [the list of crimes] pernicious origin still work the very harm the 1890 Convention intended – denying Black Mississippians the vote,” she wrote.…..

 
We’ll see if anything happens with legacy admissions
==========

WASHINGTON (AP) — The next big fight over college admissions already has taken hold, and it centers on a different kind of minority group that gets a boost: children of alumni.

In the wake of a Supreme Court decision that strikes down affirmative action in admissions, colleges are coming under renewed pressure to put an end to legacy preferences — the practice of favoring applicants with family ties to alumni. Long seen as a perk for the white and wealthy, opponents say it’s no longer defensible in a world with no counterbalance in affirmative action.

President Joe Biden suggested colleges should rethink the practice after the court’s ruling, saying legacy preferences “expand privilege instead of opportunity.” Several Democrats in Congress demanded an end to the policy in light of the court’s decision to remove race from the admissions process.

So did Republicans including Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, who is vying for the GOP presidential nomination.

“Let’s be clear: affirmative action still exists for white people. It’s called legacy admissions,” Rep. Barbara Lee, a California Democrat, said on Twitter.

For critics of legacy admissions, the renewed debate over fairness in admissions has offered a chance to swing public sentiment behind their cause.

As colleges across the U.S. pledge their commitment to diversity following the court’s ruling, activists have a simple response: prove it. If schools want to enroll more Black, Hispanic and Indigenous students, activists say, removing legacy preferences would be an easy first step.……

 
I agree. My philosophy is that it's best to vote for someone instead of against someone, so I remind myself that voting against fascists is actually voting for democracy. As long as our election system is a first past the post, zero-sum process, not voting against a fascist is basically giving a half of a vote to a fascist.

The rest is just how I see where we are at and none of it has anything to do with anyone in particular. It's just my general impression from what I am experiencing first hand, hearing from others and seeing in the news.

We dealt with the same rise of global fascism that resulted from the Industrial Age that is currently happening as a result of the Information Age. Fascists stoke and exploit fear to seize power. The disruptions of a new age create uncertainty and anxiety. Fascists prey on that uncertainty and anxiety to seize power.

I think we're at a tipping point right now in the US and that over the next 2 years we will see either a rapid descent into more extreme fascism or a rapid ascent into greater egalitarianism. Whichever way we go, I think there will be an increase in upheaval and violence over the next few years.

I'm optimistic that those of us who want equality for all will prevail over those who want the opposite. Part of my optimism is because it took humankind over a century to unite against and start reining in the fascists of the Industrial Age, but it has only taken us over a decade to unite against and start reining in the fascists of the Information Age. I think we'll be in a better place in a few years than we’ve ever been in before.

A large part of my optimism comes from walking the picket lines. Nearly every car that passes by blows their horn in support, including studio employees as they cross the picket lines going to and from work at the studios. Food trucks and caterers regularly deliver free food to the various picket sites. Local owned businesses are offering meaningful discounts to striking union members. People from all walks of life are donating money to foundations that are providing financial relief to those of us who need it the most while we strike. Members from almost every union in the region are picketing with us. Teamsters, teachers, strippers (that’s not a typo, there’s a newly formed strippers’ union) railroad workers, and on and on are picketing with us. CBS laid off hundreds of janitors. We picket together and we added their cause to our signage, chants and messaging.

All kinds of people from all walks of life are working together to provide meaningful support (not just lip service) to us while we push back against corporate abuse and exploitation. There’s a universal sense that we are all in this together. It’s a “first they came for them, and we all came together to stand with them” moment. This unity is scaring the hell out of the fascists, because they know they have to keep us divided to conquer us and have power over us.

I know that when any of us share these type of positive thoughts, observations and sentiments, their indoctrinated devotees show up to intimidate, harass, dismiss, distract and deceive us with their full-throated, incessant barking. They're relentless and pesky little buggers, I'll give them that.

Don't let them get you down or shout you down. Remind yourself that they are just loud mouthed, neurotic Chihuahuas. Remind yourself that they are the new minority and everything that they do and say is their desperate attempt to convince themselves they are not the new minority. Remind yourself that the only thing they have a say in is how violent the inevitable end to their power will be. I hope most of them choose the cowardly path, like bullies so often do when the rest of us stand united against them.

The most powerful tool of unity we have against the fascists is the power to vote. Make sure you vote against them. Make sure everyone you know votes against them. Let's all double our votes by getting just one person, who we know (who isn’t going to vote or can’t vote without help, and who also won’t vote for a fascist) to vote. Do whatever you have to get that one person to vote, even if you have to drag them kicking and screaming to the voting booth...just kidding on that...mostly kidding. Every election matters, but this next election is going to be a turning point in American history. Let's all do everything we can to make sure it's a turn toward equality for all people in all ways and a resounding rejection of fascism. We have the power to end this BS, so let’s pull together and git’er done!

Once we do that, then it’ll be safe for us to civilly disagree with each other over nuanced differences in philosophy and policy making.

Now if you will excuse me, I need to put this soap box back in the closet.

I can’t honestly say I have that level of optimism but I stand with you. I needed to read this. Thank you for putting these thoughts out there and best wishes to you.
 
This is what people mean when they say ‘elections have consequences’

I remember in 2016 some saying basically ‘I hate Donald Trump, he’s going to be a bad president but I’m voting for him for the Supreme Court pick’

You do have to wonder how many people that was true for.

If McConnell didn’t screw over Obama and Merrick Garland and if everything else was the same , grab ‘em by the pursey, the emails, I like people who weren’t captured, Benghazi, if garland was on the court if Trump still would have won
============================


WASHINGTON (AP) — Overturning Roe v. Wade and eliminating affirmative action in higher education had been leading goals of the conservative legal movement for decades.

In a span of 370 days, a Supreme Court reshaped by three justices nominated by President Donald Trump made both a reality.

Last June, the court ended nationwide protections for abortion rights. This past week, the court’s conservative majority decided that race-conscious admissions programs at the oldest private and public colleges in the country, Harvard and the University of North Carolina, were unlawful.

Precedents that had stood since the 1970s were overturned, explicitly in the case of abortion and effectively in the affirmative action context.

“That is what is notable about this court. It’s making huge changes in highly salient areas in a very short period of time,” said Tara Leigh Grove, a law professor at the University of Texas.……


 
The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina that relied in part on racial considerations, saying they violate the Constitution.

The votes split along ideological grounds, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts writing for the conservative members in the majority, and the liberals dissenting.

“The student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race,” Roberts wrote. “Many universities have for too long done just the opposite. And in doing so, they have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”

The justices deciding whether affirmative action recognizes and nourishes a multicultural nation, or impermissibly divides Americans by race, represent the most diverse Supreme Court in history. It is composed of four White men, two White women, one Black man, one Black woman and a Latina.

As recently as 2016, the court upheld an affirmative action program at the University of Texas, concluding for the third time that educational diversity justifies the consideration of race as one factor in admission decisions.


But Justice Sonia Sotomayor is the only justice remaining on the court from that slim 4-3 majority. At the time, conservative activist Edward Blum, who brought previous challenges to the practice, was already working on new lawsuits he could present to a rebuilt court.

In the North Carolina case, his group Students for Fair Admissions said the flagship university’s policies discriminated against White and Asian applicants by giving preference to Black, Hispanic and Native American ones.

The case against Harvard accused the university of discriminating against Asian American students by employing subjective standards to limit the numbers accepted.

Challengers say that under the equal protection clause, government-run universities like UNC cannot use race as a factor in admissions decisions. Harvard is not subject to that constitutional clause, but must adhere to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That statute prohibits racial discrimination in the exclusion or denial of benefits under “any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

At oral argument, several conservative justices repeatedly returned to the question of when — if ever — the consideration of race would no longer be necessary in college admissions. The justices pointed to the majority opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger from 2003 in which Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s opinion said racial preferences were not likely to be needed in 25 years.............

20230629_113714.jpg
 
This is what people mean when they say ‘elections have consequences’

I remember in 2016 some saying basically ‘I hate Donald Trump, he’s going to be a bad president but I’m voting for him for the Supreme Court pick’

You do have to wonder how many people that was true for.

If McConnell didn’t screw over Obama and Merrick Garland and if everything else was the same , grab ‘em by the pursey, the emails, I like people who weren’t captured, Benghazi, if garland was on the court if Trump still would have won
============================
We can argue over whether it was right or wrong for McConnell to say in advance that he would not allow any Obama nominee to be confirmed. Here is my argument that it was right:

In 2014, after almost six years of the Obama administration, voters gave Republicans their biggest majority in both houses of congress since 1928. Not a direct referendum on Obama, but very close to it. To allow such a lame duck to choice a lifetime USSC justice would be an injustice.

Plus, Garland was sold as a moderate. Now look at what an incredible partisan hack he has become as Attorney General. If he was such a great choice, why did Biden not nominate him?
WASHINGTON (AP) — Overturning Roe v. Wade and eliminating affirmative action in higher education had been leading goals of the conservative legal movement for decades.

In a span of 370 days, a Supreme Court reshaped by three justices nominated by President Donald Trump made both a reality.

Last June, the court ended nationwide protections for abortion rights. This past week, the court’s conservative majority decided that race-conscious admissions programs at the oldest private and public colleges in the country, Harvard and the University of North Carolina, were unlawful.

Precedents that had stood since the 1970s were overturned, explicitly in the case of abortion and effectively in the affirmative action context.

“That is what is notable about this court. It’s making huge changes in highly salient areas in a very short period of time,” said Tara Leigh Grove, a law professor at the University of Texas.……


I am surprised at how many precedents the Trump court has overturned. But that is because we have become so used to Republican-appointed justices going quickly to the other side as soon as they join The Brethren.
 

So now the Roberts supreme court is making rulings on things that haven't even happened. I'm not lawyer but in watching the coverage of this case, it's been pointed out that the SC can't take cases based on hypothetical situations. In this case, the plaintiff hasn't been harmed in any way and hasn't been forced into the situation that she sued to have redressed. The shame is that this is the supreme court. There is nowhere else to overrule the SC. This court is completely ignoring rules that have been the guiding principle for the SC since its creation. I really hope something can be done about this because it will open the floodgates to other hypothetical cases being brought to the SC.
 

So now the Roberts supreme court is making rulings on things that haven't even happened. I'm not lawyer but in watching the coverage of this case, it's been pointed out that the SC can't take cases based on hypothetical situations. In this case, the plaintiff hasn't been harmed in any way and hasn't been forced into the situation that she sued to have redressed. The shame is that this is the supreme court. There is nowhere else to overrule the SC. This court is completely ignoring rules that have been the guiding principle for the SC since its creation. I really hope something can be done about this because it will open the floodgates to other hypothetical cases being brought to the SC.
It is smart for a business owner to be proactive about finding out whether they will be violating the law by the way they want to run their business. Just "trying it to see" could result in consequences that would ruin the business and cause the loss of all of the owner's investment.

Plus plaintifs claiming discrimination tend to be very dramatic. So do brides claiming that their wedding was ruined by some small detail, like who designed their website. The media coverage would be sure to be favorable to the dramatic complainers, which would mean negative publicity (and of course "death threats") for the business owner.

That said, I think the USSC should have waited for a case in which an established web designer had a real customer demanding that the reluctant business person provide service.
 
It is smart for a business owner to be proactive about finding out whether they will be violating the law by the way they want to run their business. Just "trying it to see" could result in consequences that would ruin the business and cause the loss of all of the owner's investment.
This is Joe the plumber with real world consequences. Do you think it's OK to make case law based on something that might happen as opposed to something that actually happened?

Next thing people will start filing for tax losses that they might have had if they started a business.

How about people start getting tried for something they might do? Would that be a bridge too far for you?
 
This is Joe the plumber with real world consequences. Do you think it's OK to make case law based on something that might happen as opposed to something that actually happened?

Next thing people will start filing for tax losses that they might have had if they started a business.

How about people start getting tried for something they might do? Would that be a bridge too far for you?
Bad comparisons.

If an owner fears consequences if she turns down a request to design a website that would violate her beliefs, something has already happened. What has happened is that the owner has been put in fear, in an attempt to force the owner to do what will violate her beliefs.

She needs relief from that, and the court is her place to seek it.
 
Bad comparisons.

If an owner fears consequences if she turns down a request to design a website that would violate her beliefs, something has already happened. What has happened is that the owner has been put in fear, in an attempt to force the owner to do what will violate her beliefs.

She needs relief from that, and the court is her place to seek it.
It's not a bad comparison IMO. It's still a hypothetical case. She hasn't designed anything. No one has threatened her. No one has made a request from her to design anything.
If that is the case then the SC should reverse course on the recent ruling long AA because a black student can claim they fear that colleges will discriminate against them IF they apply for college admission.

It has been long standing in law that a decision can't be made on a hypothetical case.
Your take and stance is wrong IMO
 
We aren't going to agree then. I'm familiar with your views about the process that election and about Clinton. If it's not complaints about hubris, or perceptions of unfairness for how the party treated an Independent-turned-Democrat for the primaries, it will just be other things. And that's where my point is; anybody who is serious about progress had better understand the consequences of not supporting the candidates who will get them closer to their goals in general elections.

I would have voted for Sanders and anybody else who got the Democratic nomination that year because I understood the consequences of not doing so.

Here is a way to frame this so it makes more sense. In the way you originally worded this, the voting base was simply smarter in 2020 to support Biden. It would give no credit to Biden for making inroads with progressives, and winning them over. Does that sound right?

I want to be clear the idea that progressives, or "Bernie Bros" are to blame for HRC losing, but Biden gets credit for getting them to vote for him logically makes no sense. It's either the fault of the candidate, or the voting base. I will never understand your kind of sentiments that put the fault with the voting base, and not the candidate.

You want people to vote for you? Run better candidates, and campaigns. The American public owes the DNP nothing.
 
It's not a bad comparison IMO. It's still a hypothetical case. She hasn't designed anything. No one has threatened her. No one has made a request from her to design anything.
If that is the case then the SC should reverse course on the recent ruling long AA because a black student can claim they fear that colleges will discriminate against them IF they apply for college admission.

It has been long standing in law that a decision can't be made on a hypothetical case.
Your take and stance is wrong IMO
Do you have case law in which the courts rejected a hypothetical case, even though the plaintiff had a valid reason to fear enforcement of a law the owner argues is unconstitutional?

If a state passed a law that said that anyone who publishes disparaging remarks about the governor will have all of his financial holding frozen to be taken as a civil fine, should a newspaper have to wait until their bank accounts are frozen before they sue for relief?

Plus, the website designer had no way to know that she would win the case. If she decided to test the law and simply reject the work order to see what happens, she might wind up stuck with a crippling fine. Enforcers of those type laws are noted for their enthusiasm in applying penalties. Even if she eventually won, she might have been required to pay the fine or shut down while the case made its way to the USSC.
 
Do you have case law in which the courts rejected a hypothetical case, even though the plaintiff had a valid reason to fear enforcement of a law the owner argues is unconstitutional?
Because courts are not permitted to decide merely hypothetical questions or possibilities, the court must determine whether the issues are fit for judicial review.
The plaintiff in this case presented false information using someone's name, email and contact information and presented it as factual. When a reporter asked the person about his request for a gay wedding website, he denied knowing anything about it. The guy has been married for 15 years to a woman and has kids. The plaintiff submitted false information as fact in a supreme court case.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Advertisement

General News Feed

Fact Checkers News Feed

Sponsored

Back
Top Bottom