mad_asshatter@lemmy.world to politics @lemmy.world · 5 days agoSupreme Court rejects challenge to Biden admin's contact with social media companies - ABC Newsabcnews.go.comexternal-linkmessage-square5fedilinkarrow-up158arrow-down12file-text
arrow-up156arrow-down1external-linkSupreme Court rejects challenge to Biden admin's contact with social media companies - ABC Newsabcnews.go.commad_asshatter@lemmy.world to politics @lemmy.world · 5 days agomessage-square5fedilinkfile-text
minus-squareCort@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up5·4 days agoShe’s saying the states don’t have standing to bring the suit. They’re unable to prove they were harmed specifically, so they don’t have standing. A better way to read the phrase in question would be “the court’s doctrine regarding standing” See: Standing
minus-squareoxjox@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·4 days agoI totally understand what she’s saying. What I don’t understand is how three people can possibly disagree with this. This doesn’t seem to be a subjective matter at all.
minus-squarecannibalkitteh@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkarrow-up8·4 days agoThomas and Alito prettymuch always just start from the result they want and work backwards.
She’s saying the states don’t have standing to bring the suit. They’re unable to prove they were harmed specifically, so they don’t have standing.
A better way to read the phrase in question would be “the court’s doctrine regarding standing”
See: Standing
I totally understand what she’s saying. What I don’t understand is how three people can possibly disagree with this. This doesn’t seem to be a subjective matter at all.
Thomas and Alito prettymuch always just start from the result they want and work backwards.