So, we have someone who has never suffered a harm from the law, was under no risk of prosecution, and who had never even had the opportunity to violate the law. If this person has standing, then standing is meaningless.
The fact that there's a blurb about it in a decision is irrelevant, does the court have a consistent philosophy on standing, or are they just winging it? It seems really obvious they're winging it.
otterley|1 year ago
In Biden v. Nebraska, standing is exhaustively discussed in Part II.
drewrv|1 year ago
In fact, there is no evidence they had ever built a wedding website: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/06/real-story-behin...
So, we have someone who has never suffered a harm from the law, was under no risk of prosecution, and who had never even had the opportunity to violate the law. If this person has standing, then standing is meaningless.
The fact that there's a blurb about it in a decision is irrelevant, does the court have a consistent philosophy on standing, or are they just winging it? It seems really obvious they're winging it.