141
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2024
141 points (99.3% liked)
politics
18956 readers
5338 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Likely the only reason why the SC came down on this the way they did was because of the nebulous standing.
Generally, you can't come to court without a realized injury. Meaning you've been actually hurt, not that you have the potential to be hurt. It's the difference between arguing "This law may prevent me from getting a marriage certificate as a homosexual individual" and "I legally applied for a marriage license and was denied one". Whether or not you think it's a good idea, it reduces the case load of courts around the country.
The Mifepristone case was brought all the SC by a group of people who couldn't show an actual injury. Their arguments all centered around "Some of the people we represent might be affected by the fact that Mifepristone is so flagrantly prescribed, and dealing with the fallout of an abortion goes against the beliefs of these specific people we represent". And the SC rejected that on standing alone, because it would open the flood gates for all sorts of lawsuits. "My child is threatened by the manufacture of AR-15 rifles by X company because they're used in school shootings!" etc.
That is the only reason why this case was decided the way it was. If you want to protect Women's rights, you need to turn out in your local elections every chance you get.
It's still amazing that they shot it down for that reason when the case brought by Lorie Smith had pretty much no standing either (i.e. a homosexual couple never once solicited her services). https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/supreme-court-rules-website-designer-can-deny-same-sex-couples-service/