A quick spit-balling on DOJ Georgia suit

[mb227]

In light of the holding in https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-297_4g25.pdf it could get interesting to see if the State's response is to seek an MSJ for failure to show a concrete harm.

Haven't had time to fully parse the TransUnion case (which dealt with OFAC listings not being fully disclosed) but it was a case that, at first blush, seems in its holding to tie standing in a federal case to a showing of 'concrete harm.' And absent a concrete harm under the new Georgia law, standing would not exist at this time precisely because abstract hypothetical is NOT concrete harm...

I did find it interesting that Thomas and Kagan were both in on the dissent...not a mix you expect to see often.

 

[Duck Dodgers]

Standing is what any judge wants it to be.

Leftist judges allowed a global warming hysteria suit to go forward by some high schoolers (acting as fronts for the real funders), as global warmish is supposed to destroy their future world, so it impacts them.

Judges use standing to dispose of high profile cases they don't want to deal with. It's why the SC used standing to avoid ruling on Obama care, despite it having been ruled on by a district and Appellate level courts. Apparently, the SC had some super-secret rules about standing that only they know of and thus the lower courts all were in error.

All that matters is who hears the case. If it's some leftist judge, then standing will be some unnamed person who they claim will be denied the right to vote from their laziness. If it's a conservative judge, they may pull the standing trick out to avoid ruling on it and being called racialist. The most important aspect is who's hearing a case in modern America, not the merits.