Strange New Respect for Chief Justice Roberts View of ‘Standing’?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Strange New Respect for Chief Justice Roberts View of ‘Standing’?

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/strange-new-respect-chief-justice-roberts-view-standing_737938.html

    Much will be written about Chief Justice Roberts's opinion for the court in Hollingsworth v. Perry, holding that supporters of California's Proposition 8 lacked constitutional "standing" to defend in federal court California's ballot initiative against same-sex marriage.

    Justice Roberts is consistent in his views of the notion of standing to challenge laws. This cannot be said of the Left.

    In 2005, when Roberts was nominated to the court, he drew heavy fire from the left for his 1993 article in the Duke Law Review, "Article III Limits on Statutory Standing." According to many on the left, Roberts's appointment to the court would further close the courthouse doors to favored liberal causes, by reinforcing the Rehnquist Court's precedents on "standing" as a limit on the federal courts' jurisdiction.

    EarthJustice, an environmental group, warned, "Would John Roberts Deny Your Access To The Court?" MoveOn.org criticized Roberts's agreement with Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, a seminal case reinvigorating the doctrine of standing. The Washington Post published an entire op-ed largely about Robert's view of standing.

    The biggest foreshadow of today's decision came at Roberts's confirmation hearing, when Senator Leahy argued that the courts' use of standing as a check on courts' jurisdiction threatens to insulate governors' and presidents' unlawful acts from judicial review: "So I ask you this. People, if their President or their Governor fails to enforce these laws, why should not individuals have access to courts"?

    I suspect that Senator Leahy is a lot less worried about that today than he was in 2005. His demand for the courts to allow citizens to enforce "these laws" is probably less urgent when "these laws" include Prop 8, rather than environmental laws. Chalk it up as another example of "strange new respect."

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from macnh1. Show macnh1's posts

    Re: Strange New Respect for Chief Justice Roberts View of ‘Standing’?

    gay couples generally are well educated and make lots of money, pay lots of taxes and typically dont have kids in the school system.....whats the problem??  i see a whole bunch of people i dont have to pay for!!!!

    there are more important issues...

     

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Strange New Respect for Chief Justice Roberts View of ‘Standing’?


    lol, I agree. I could not care less about peoples sexual orientation.

    I do think people that feel the need to flaunt their sexuality may have personal issues.

    I do not get why anyone would wear shorts that say "Juicy" or something more ridiculous.

    But, that may be just because Im old. It doesn't make them bad.

     

     

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Strange New Respect for Chief Justice Roberts View of ‘Standing’?

    gay couples generally are well educated and make lots of money, pay lots of taxes and typically dont have kids in the school system.....whats the problem??

    Republicans! (except for the kids part...)

    --

    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Strange New Respect for Chief Justice Roberts View of ‘Standing’?

    In response to tvoter's comment:


    lol, I agree. I could not care less about peoples sexual orientation.

    I do think people that feel the need to flaunt their sexuality may have personal issues.

    I do not get why anyone would wear shorts that say "Juicy" or something more ridiculous.

    But, that may be just because Im old. It doesn't make them bad.

     

     

     



    To tell you the truth, I could care less as well.  The problem is that THEY care if I care.  

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Strange New Respect for Chief Justice Roberts View of ‘Standing’?

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

    In response to tvoter's comment:

     

     

     


    lol, I agree. I could not care less about peoples sexual orientation.

    I do think people that feel the need to flaunt their sexuality may have personal issues.

    I do not get why anyone would wear shorts that say "Juicy" or something more ridiculous.

    But, that may be just because Im old. It doesn't make them bad.

     

     

     

     

     

     



    To tell you the truth, I could care less as well.  The problem is that THEY care if I care.  

     

     

     

     



    It's "I couldn't care less". Oh, and "gays are as wrong as cancer".

     

     



     

    I could care less.  It is that gays want everyone else to celebrate their diversity. Where's the outrage that polygamists can't legally marry?

    Yah, figured you couldn't answer that.

    But, the law is settled, so let's move to the next stage of "fundamentally transforming America".

    I find it particularly funny that Clinton and Obama areonboard.  Clinton signed DOMA into law, and Obama's conversion to being pro-gay marraige happened a year ago.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     

Share