- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Supreme Court votes 7-2 to KEEP Obamacare!
Posted on 6/17/21 at 11:05 am to m2pro
Posted on 6/17/21 at 11:05 am to m2pro
as stated in the other thread on this decision...
they didn't rule on the merits of the law
just said the states didn't have standing to bring the case
really need to find a person who has legit standing to bring the case up the judicial circuit
they didn't rule on the merits of the law
just said the states didn't have standing to bring the case
really need to find a person who has legit standing to bring the case up the judicial circuit
4
Posted on 6/17/21 at 11:06 am to rt3
quote:
really need to find a person who has legit standing to bring the case up the judicial circuit
I’m not sure standing is possible to challenge the law based on the unconstitutional mandate. In effect, that’s what this decision does.
Neither the states nor individuals have a redressable injury according to SCOTUS, because there is no enforcement of the mandate currently.
Posted on 6/17/21 at 11:24 am to rt3
Can someone explain to me very simply what “standing” means in these cases?
Posted on 6/17/21 at 11:39 am to rt3
quote:
they didn't rule on the merits of the law
just said the states didn't have standing to bring the case
really need to find a person who has legit standing to bring the case up the judicial circuit
Deja vu all over again.
Posted on 6/17/21 at 12:50 pm to rt3
quote:
they didn't rule on the merits of the law
just said the states didn't have standing to bring the case
They could have ruled it unconstitutional and upset the left, or they could have ruled it constitutional and upset the right. Either way would have upset someone but everyone would know that the court is going to act to protect the Constitution. When they punt the ball on the big issues they upset one side and please the other, but both sides loose respect for the court. The court continues to take steps towards making itself irrelevant. Which is weird because Chief Justice Roberts main goal is preserving and/or enhancing the credibility and integrity of the court.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News