Barrett wrote. “This Court’s standing doctrine prevents us from ‘exercis[ing such] general legal oversight’ of the other branches of Government.”
Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented.
How is it possible that “the court’s standing doctrine prevents” them from doing something yet three justices dissent? Is the “standing doctrine” not the “law”?
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.
How is it possible that “the court’s standing doctrine prevents” them from doing something yet three justices dissent? Is the “standing doctrine” not the “law”?
Probably because those three justices think it is more important what a white male landowner from 1789 would have thought about his social media feed.
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.
deleted by creator