Posted on 06/20/2019 7:05:32 AM PDT by SMGFan
We're live-blogging as the Supreme Court releases opinions in one or more argued cases. SCOTUSblog is sponsored by Casetext: A more intelligent way to search the law.
Thanks for the welcome news.
Abandoning offended observer standing will mean only a return to the usual demands of Article III, requiring a real controversy with real impact on real persons to make a federal case out of it.
Cue the Hallelujah Chorus!
Thanks SMGFan.:)
In a large and diverse country, offense can be easily found. Really, most every governmental action probably offends somebody. No doubt, too, that offense can be sincere, sometimes well taken, even wise. But recourse for disagreement and offense does not lie in federal litigation. Instead, in a society that holds among its most cherished ambitions mutual respect, tolerance, self-rule, and demo- cratic responsibility, an offended viewer may avert his eyes, Erznoznik v. Jacksonville, 422 U. S. 205, 212 (1975), or pursue a political solution. Todays decision represents a welcome step toward restoring this Courts recognition of these truths, and I respectfully concur in the judgment.
Justice Gorsuch
You nailed it.
Just as Rome never had a king after the overthrow of the last Tarquin, yet breathed her last under unlimited Emperors, America will never have an unlimited, absolute monarch. Instead, it has an unlimited, absolute Supreme Court.
Outstanding statement but Justice Gorsuch.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.