4 ms·

Note that the court didn't decide the case on its merits; they said the parties had a lack of standing.

by mannyv 2y ago

gnicholas 2y ago
Is there any chance that another party with standing will bring a similar case?
- spondylosaurus 2y ago
  Not to jinx it, but it seems unlikely. You'd think anyone with a leg to stand on would've come forward already (or been sought out by the plaintiff) for this suit.
  - bbor 2y ago
    I think they’re saying they’ll change the argument, not find people to support it. E: I love how I’m always wrong about law, even when it sounds simple… [other claimants that we expect to try again] were able to intervene as plaintiffs at the lower court level
  - Spivak 2y ago
    This isn't always the case, but you're right it's pretty odd to go through with this case on such shaky ground. It's almost surely because they couldn't find anyone better, many of these cases wait until you find the perfect plantiff and it can take a lot of time/money searching. They would have to be in a very sympathetic court to get the ruling they want given the harm they're trying to demonstrate. It makes no sense that medical procedures should be banned because other doctors might be asked to treat complications. That's how literally every medical intervention works.
    - spondylosaurus 2y ago
      Yeah, that reasoning would have crazy implications. No one's allowed to get surgery anymore because you might catch MRSA while you're recovering in the hospital afterwards... no medication because you might have a side effect or allergic reaction....
- healsdata 2y ago
  Yes. "[Erin Hawley, one of the group's lawyers] is hopeful the underlying lawsuit can continue because three states -- Idaho, Missouri and Kansas -- have brought their own claims and have different arguments for standing"
- bbor 2y ago
  This a bigger question than you’ll get an answer to on a forum I fear, but I may be pessimistic. Ultimately this court is somewhat infamous for their recent decisions on standing, especially when striking down Roe. My expert lawyer friend who’s never been known to just make stuff up, Mr. GPT esq., suggests that the primary culprits would be injured patients, consumer advocacy groups on behalf of injured patients, or competitors alleging unfair approval processes. Otherwise… I mean, theoretically, a priest could bring a suit on the grounds of “the presence of abortion in my country will make god angry with me” and win, with the right judges to hear them out…
  - gnicholas 2y ago
    I don't recall an outcry about standing when Dobbs was decided (and as a lawyer, I am attuned to such things). Looking at the wikipedia page for Dobbs, [1] there's hardly a mention of it. Perhaps you're thinking of the student loan forgiveness cases, which raised this question? 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women%27s_Health_Organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women%27s_Hea...
    - bbor 2y ago
      Thanks for the quick correction! You are, of course, completely correct.
falcolas 2y ago
Sadly, this is still a notable outcome. Especially given how other cases have been brought before the current Supreme Court by entities who didn't have standing (they were fighting the court cases based on hypothetical scenarios) obtained favorable rulings.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
everdrive 2y ago
The supreme court resolves questions, not cases. They resolve how the law can and should be interpreted, and then the courts decide the case with the Supreme Court's reading of the law.
- Maxatar 2y ago
  This is untrue and creates a false dichotomy. The Supreme Court does resolve cases, and the manner in which they do so is by resolving legal questions.
- wahern 2y ago
  This is true in some other countries where a high court (sometimes called a constitutional court) is often tasked with deciding the legitimacy of a law, the allowable scope of its application, etc, outside the context of a particularized, concrete dispute involving claims of actual or imminent harm or loss. (Often the context is settling a speculative dispute of authority between government branches.) Sometimes that might be the highest court's only job. That is definitely not how the United States Supreme Court operates, though some US state supreme courts will hear and issue opinions on purely abstract legal questions, especially if submitted by the legislature or some other office given special privileges.
- everybodyknows 2y ago
  Sounds like excellent institutional procedure -- can you point to documentation that that is indeed the intended process?
tialaramex 2y ago
It made sense to declare that it lacks standing, but this case shouldn't even have been before the court - imagine if you could just say "Oh, I decided Jim Smith owes me a billion dollars" with no justification and somehow the US Supreme Court thinks they need to hear that to see if they should intervene, rather than tell you to fuck off. The court never needed to even hear this, increasingly a GOP-controlled court wants to take every opportunity to see if there's some sliver of a reason why they can meddle in the business of other government entities, and isn't interested in boring minutiae of actual legal decisions. A hundred years ago, a season of US Supreme Court decisions might have one political hot potato and most of the rest of its work is boring technical decisions which are building a sophisticated legal framework that can be used in lower courts to explain how things need to work. This is useful (but not very exciting) work, well suited to an actual independent final court with more than ten very knowledgeable judges and nothing else to fill their days. My favourite example from the UK's Supreme Court, they decided what sort of crime could possibly deserve a punishment of imprisonment without possibility of parole - they decided it should be multiple distinct murders, such as if you were a serial killer or you killed somebody and then when you were paroled for that you decided to kill the people who caught you the first time as well. But today the US Supreme Court barely finds any time for such things, those don't generate "buzz" and get you another free luxury vacation from a "close friend" who didn't know you until you mattered. Now it's "Can we find an excuse to fuck with Biden?" and "Is there a way to give my 'friend' what he wants?" with the result that of course the general public increasingly no longer see the Rule Of Law as a good thing in the US. I have a feeling that a good number of the present US Supreme Court, maybe even a majority, would have William Roper's side of the argument in "A Man For All Seasons". Roper argues that "I'd cut down every law in England to [catch the devil]" and More asks what he'd do when the Devil turns on him, as would inevitably happen, where would he hide, with no law?

Note that the court didn't decide the case on its merits; they said the parties had a lack of standing.

by mannyv 2y ago

Note that the court didn't decide the case on its merits; they said the parties had a lack of standing.

gnicholas 2y ago

Is there any chance that another party with standing will bring a similar case?

spondylosaurus 2y ago
Not to jinx it, but it seems unlikely. You'd think anyone with a leg to stand on would've come forward already (or been sought out by the plaintiff) for this suit.
- bbor 2y ago
  I think they’re saying they’ll change the argument, not find people to support it. E: I love how I’m always wrong about law, even when it sounds simple… [other claimants that we expect to try again] were able to intervene as plaintiffs at the lower court level
- Spivak 2y ago
  This isn't always the case, but you're right it's pretty odd to go through with this case on such shaky ground. It's almost surely because they couldn't find anyone better, many of these cases wait until you find the perfect plantiff and it can take a lot of time/money searching. They would have to be in a very sympathetic court to get the ruling they want given the harm they're trying to demonstrate. It makes no sense that medical procedures should be banned because other doctors might be asked to treat complications. That's how literally every medical intervention works.
  - spondylosaurus 2y ago
    Yeah, that reasoning would have crazy implications. No one's allowed to get surgery anymore because you might catch MRSA while you're recovering in the hospital afterwards... no medication because you might have a side effect or allergic reaction....
healsdata 2y ago
Yes. "[Erin Hawley, one of the group's lawyers] is hopeful the underlying lawsuit can continue because three states -- Idaho, Missouri and Kansas -- have brought their own claims and have different arguments for standing"
bbor 2y ago
This a bigger question than you’ll get an answer to on a forum I fear, but I may be pessimistic. Ultimately this court is somewhat infamous for their recent decisions on standing, especially when striking down Roe. My expert lawyer friend who’s never been known to just make stuff up, Mr. GPT esq., suggests that the primary culprits would be injured patients, consumer advocacy groups on behalf of injured patients, or competitors alleging unfair approval processes. Otherwise… I mean, theoretically, a priest could bring a suit on the grounds of “the presence of abortion in my country will make god angry with me” and win, with the right judges to hear them out…
- gnicholas 2y ago
  I don't recall an outcry about standing when Dobbs was decided (and as a lawyer, I am attuned to such things). Looking at the wikipedia page for Dobbs, [1] there's hardly a mention of it. Perhaps you're thinking of the student loan forgiveness cases, which raised this question? 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women%27s_Health_Organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women%27s_Hea...
  - bbor 2y ago
    Thanks for the quick correction! You are, of course, completely correct.

falcolas 2y ago

Sadly, this is still a notable outcome. Especially given how other cases have been brought before the current Supreme Court by entities who didn't have standing (they were fighting the court cases based on hypothetical scenarios) obtained favorable rulings.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

everdrive 2y ago

The supreme court resolves questions, not cases. They resolve how the law can and should be interpreted, and then the courts decide the case with the Supreme Court's reading of the law.

Maxatar 2y ago
This is untrue and creates a false dichotomy. The Supreme Court does resolve cases, and the manner in which they do so is by resolving legal questions.
wahern 2y ago
This is true in some other countries where a high court (sometimes called a constitutional court) is often tasked with deciding the legitimacy of a law, the allowable scope of its application, etc, outside the context of a particularized, concrete dispute involving claims of actual or imminent harm or loss. (Often the context is settling a speculative dispute of authority between government branches.) Sometimes that might be the highest court's only job. That is definitely not how the United States Supreme Court operates, though some US state supreme courts will hear and issue opinions on purely abstract legal questions, especially if submitted by the legislature or some other office given special privileges.
everybodyknows 2y ago
Sounds like excellent institutional procedure -- can you point to documentation that that is indeed the intended process?

tialaramex 2y ago

It made sense to declare that it lacks standing, but this case shouldn't even have been before the court - imagine if you could just say "Oh, I decided Jim Smith owes me a billion dollars" with no justification and somehow the US Supreme Court thinks they need to hear that to see if they should intervene, rather than tell you to fuck off. The court never needed to even hear this, increasingly a GOP-controlled court wants to take every opportunity to see if there's some sliver of a reason why they can meddle in the business of other government entities, and isn't interested in boring minutiae of actual legal decisions. A hundred years ago, a season of US Supreme Court decisions might have one political hot potato and most of the rest of its work is boring technical decisions which are building a sophisticated legal framework that can be used in lower courts to explain how things need to work. This is useful (but not very exciting) work, well suited to an actual independent final court with more than ten very knowledgeable judges and nothing else to fill their days. My favourite example from the UK's Supreme Court, they decided what sort of crime could possibly deserve a punishment of imprisonment without possibility of parole - they decided it should be multiple distinct murders, such as if you were a serial killer or you killed somebody and then when you were paroled for that you decided to kill the people who caught you the first time as well. But today the US Supreme Court barely finds any time for such things, those don't generate "buzz" and get you another free luxury vacation from a "close friend" who didn't know you until you mattered. Now it's "Can we find an excuse to fuck with Biden?" and "Is there a way to give my 'friend' what he wants?" with the result that of course the general public increasingly no longer see the Rule Of Law as a good thing in the US. I have a feeling that a good number of the present US Supreme Court, maybe even a majority, would have William Roper's side of the argument in "A Man For All Seasons". Roper argues that "I'd cut down every law in England to [catch the devil]" and More asks what he'd do when the Devil turns on him, as would inevitably happen, where would he hide, with no law?