WWTBAM Bored

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List has standing to challenge a state law in Ohio that prohibits false statements about political candidates.

The unanimous ruling, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, says the group demonstrated a "sufficiently imminent injury" and therefore its First Amendment case against the law may move forward.

For the lawyers:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/229893363/SBA ... us-Opinion

Not surprising. A ruling the opposite way would put politicians and lawyers out of business. The Court has ruled in the past that cops can lie too, to trick a suspect into confessing.

jarnon wrote:Not surprising. A ruling the opposite way would put politicians and lawyers out of business. The Court has ruled in the past that cops can lie too, to trick a suspect into confessing.

It's not surprising that Clarence Thomas would write the opinion.

Bob Juch wrote:

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List has standing to challenge a state law in Ohio that prohibits false statements about political candidates.

The unanimous ruling, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, says the group demonstrated a "sufficiently imminent injury" and therefore its First Amendment case against the law may move forward.

For the lawyers:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/229893363/SBA ... us-Opinion

Contrary to what the thread title implies, this wasn't a case about the merits. It was a case about standing. The Court didn't decide that the law is unconstitutional (though I think it will reach that conclusion should the merits come before it). It merely decided that the List is entitled to pursue its attack on the law. --Bob

Bob Juch wrote:

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List has standing to challenge a state law in Ohio that prohibits false statements about political candidates.

The unanimous ruling, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, says the group demonstrated a "sufficiently imminent injury" and therefore its First Amendment case against the law may move forward.

For the lawyers:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/229893363/SBA ... us-Opinion

This decision was not a decision on the merits of the Ohio law. The lower court never reached that issue because they determined that the Susan B. Anthony list had not alleged a sufficient injury to demonstrate they had standing to sue. The standing requirement is designed to keep courts from being deluged by lawsuits by anyone who happens to think a particular law may be invalid for some reason. Instead, a potential litigant must show a real stake in the controversy. The standing requirement resulted in some of the cases against Obamacare being thrown out of court for the same reason.

The lower courts will now have to make their own decision whether the law is constitutional, and, perhaps, that issue might come before the Supreme Court again in a couple of years.

Bob78164 wrote:Contrary to what the thread title implies,

Classic BobJ trying to bait people

Bob Juch wrote:It's not surprising that Clarence Thomas would write the opinion.

Bob78164 wrote:Contrary to what the thread title implies, this wasn't a case about the merits. It was a case about standing. The Court didn't decide that the law is unconstitutional (though I think it will reach that conclusion should the merits come before it). It merely decided that the List is entitled to pursue its attack on the law. --Bob

I'ts not suprising that Bob Juch jumps to the wrong conclusion.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List has standing to challenge a state law in Ohio that prohibits false statements about political candidates.

The unanimous ruling, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, says the group demonstrated a "sufficiently imminent injury" and therefore its First Amendment case against the law may move forward.

For the lawyers:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/229893363/SBA ... us-Opinion

This decision was not a decision on the merits of the Ohio law. The lower court never reached that issue because they determined that the Susan B. Anthony list had not alleged a sufficient injury to demonstrate they had standing to sue. The standing requirement is designed to keep courts from being deluged by lawsuits by anyone who happens to think a particular law may be invalid for some reason. Instead, a potential litigant must show a real stake in the controversy. The standing requirement resulted in some of the cases against Obamacare being thrown out of court for the same reason.

The lower courts will now have to make their own decision whether the law is constitutional, and, perhaps, that issue might come before the Supreme Court again in a couple of years.

At least they ruled you can't lie about buying for another person when making a handgun purchase.

Can't let Bob's trolling go by without a link to the Amicus brief filed by CATO on behalf of humorist P. J. O'Rourke, it will tell you more about the case than Bob ever will http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/f ... -brief.pdf

“I am not a crook.”

“Read my lips: no new taxes!”

“I did not have sexual relations with that
woman.”

“Mission accomplished.”

“If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it.”

While George Washington may have been incapable of telling a lie,2 his successors have not had the same integrity. The campaign promise (and its subsequent violation), as well as disparaging statements about one’s opponent (whether true, mostly true, mostly not true, or entirely fantastic),
are cornerstones of American democracy. Indeed, mocking and satire are as old as America, and if this Court doesn’t believe amici, it can ask Thomas
Jefferson, “the son of a half-breed squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father.”