5 ms·
Seems like that might not be possible these days. > On June 25, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a plaintiff must suffer a concrete injur
by hiatus 3y ago
Seems like that might not be possible these days.
> On June 25, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a plaintiff must suffer a concrete injury resulting from a defendant’s statutory violation to have Article III standing to pursue damages from that defendant in federal court. The Court also held that plaintiffs in a class action must prove that every class member has standing for each claim asserted and for each form of relief sought.
https://consumerfsblog.com/2021/06/supreme-court-substantially-restricts-ability-to-sue-in-federal-court-for-fcra-fdcpa-tcpa-and-other-statutory-violations-same-class-actions-now-difficult-to-certify/ https://consumerfsblog.com/2021/06/supreme-court-substantial...
- mrguyorama 3y agoAnd then two years later they take and rule on a case that was completely fabricated. Awesome. Glad to know it's rules for thee and not for me
- lostlogin 3y agoIsn’t the saying usually ‘rules for me and not for thee’?
- 303uru 3y agoMeanwhile, a "website designer" who's never deployed a website, was never hired to create one and who suffered zero injury gets a ruling. This SCOTUS is invalid.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- bequanna 3y agoBoth political parties have endeavored to pack the courts with sympathetic judges. The conservatives got the Supreme Court majority by pure luck. The Democrats would have done the exact same if given the opportunity and then you’d have the Right crying about how the court is “invalid”. To change this, we should require some kind of supermajority to confirm judicial appointments at all levels.
- flangola7 3y ago[flagged]
- unbalancedevh 3y agoThat wasn't "bothsidesing" the issue. Whatever your current political opinion, the potential is still there for abuse by either party, and there's room for improvement in the process. The point still stands.
- cbozeman 3y agoExpand.
- drekipus 3y agoNot to your definition of morals. Surely you can see that, right?
- FractalHQ 3y agoIf your morals are immoral, sure.
- swat535 3y agoWhat's your definition of immoral? and by whose standard? Outside of a religious context, morality can be very much subjective.
- drekipus 3y ago> Outside of a religious context Or, outside of your religious context, more precisely. One religion could think it's moral to treat non-believers like cattle, or kill them, and other religions think it's immoral. Morality is the most subjective "objective morality" there is
- flangola7 3y agoMorality is not subjective. There are definitions of that are more correct than others. Otherwise laws and prosocial behavior would be impossible to define.
- leereeves 3y ago> Meanwhile, a "website designer" who's never deployed a website, was never hired to create one and who suffered zero injury gets a ruling. This SCOTUS is invalid. Where did you get the idea that she's never deployed a website? I've never heard anyone say that. (And at the very least, she has her own site, https://303creative.com/ https://303creative.com/ )
- FireBeyond 3y agoYou should read this: https://newrepublic.com/post/173675/supreme-court-just-used-fake-case-make-easier-discriminate-gay-people https://newrepublic.com/post/173675/supreme-court-just-used-... > Puzzlingly, before she actually filed the first suit in 2016, Smith had apparently never designed a wedding website. Even weirder: She had never apparently been asked to provide services to a same-sex couple up to that point either. And the customer who "requested" the site was fake, too: > But after The New Republic reached out to Stewart directly—his contact information was readily accessible in court documents—the story fell apart: He said he had never submitted the form; he said TNR’s call was “the very first time I’ve heard of it.”
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- hiatus 3y agoThat whole case seems like a mess. > It was later discovered by The New Republic that Smith had made a wedding website for a heterosexual couple in 2015, which had been removed from her business's profile prior to her filing the case but remained visible in the Wayback Machine archives https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jul/25/lgbtq-rights-supreme-court-case-wedding-site https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jul/25/lgbtq-rights-sup...
- leereeves 3y agoOf course it was removed from her business's profile. Under Colorado law she wasn't allowed to offer to create any wedding sites unless she was willing to create LGBT wedding sites. She wasn't, so she removed references to wedding sites. Why do you find that strange?
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> that might not be possible these days You’re most likely making these claims in state courts. Federal cases start at $25k.
- jkaplowitz 3y ago$75k if you mean the usual amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction, no? Anyway, the FDCPA specifically gives federal courts jurisdiction over FDCPA violations “regardless of the amount in controversy”, so there’s no minimum. Still, the FDCPA jurisdiction provision is non-exclusive, meaning state courts also remain a viable option.
- hiatus 3y agoYeah this does not impact cases brought before state courts: > Article III, § 2 of the U.S. Constitution limits federal court jurisdiction to cases and controversies. But the Supreme Court has held “the constraints of Article III do not apply to state courts, and accordingly the state courts are not bound by the limitations of a case or controversy or other federal rules of justiciability even when they address issues of federal law, as when they are called upon to interpret the Constitution or, in this case, a federal statute.” ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605, 617 (1989). https://library.nclc.org/article/bringing-federal-consumer-claims-state-court-50-state-analysis-standing-rules#content-0 https://library.nclc.org/article/bringing-federal-consumer-c...
- jkaplowitz 3y agoThat ruling only applies to federal courts. FDCPA claims can be, and sometimes are, filed in state courts, which are allowed to be more permissive about standing rules (to the extent permitted by state constitutions and laws) than federal courts.