[hiatus]

Seems like that might not be possible these days.

> On June 25, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a plaintiff must suffer a concrete injury resulting from a defendant’s statutory violation to have Article III standing to pursue damages from that defendant in federal court. The Court also held that plaintiffs in a class action must prove that every class member has standing for each claim asserted and for each form of relief sought.

https://consumerfsblog.com/2021/06/supreme-court-substantial...

[303uru]

Meanwhile, a "website designer" who's never deployed a website, was never hired to create one and who suffered zero injury gets a ruling. This SCOTUS is invalid.

[leereeves]

> Meanwhile, a "website designer" who's never deployed a website, was never hired to create one and who suffered zero injury gets a ruling. This SCOTUS is invalid.

Where did you get the idea that she's never deployed a website? I've never heard anyone say that. (And at the very least, she has her own site, https://303creative.com/ )

[FireBeyond]

You should read this: https://newrepublic.com/post/173675/supreme-court-just-used-...

> Puzzlingly, before she actually filed the first suit in 2016, Smith had apparently never designed a wedding website. Even weirder: She had never apparently been asked to provide services to a same-sex couple up to that point either.

And the customer who "requested" the site was fake, too:

> But after The New Republic reached out to Stewart directly—his contact information was readily accessible in court documents—the story fell apart: He said he had never submitted the form; he said TNR’s call was “the very first time I’ve heard of it.”

[hiatus]

That whole case seems like a mess.

> It was later discovered by The New Republic that Smith had made a wedding website for a heterosexual couple in 2015, which had been removed from her business's profile prior to her filing the case but remained visible in the Wayback Machine archives

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jul/25/lgbtq-rights-sup...

[leereeves]

Of course it was removed from her business's profile. Under Colorado law she wasn't allowed to offer to create any wedding sites unless she was willing to create LGBT wedding sites.

She wasn't, so she removed references to wedding sites. Why do you find that strange?

[bequanna]

Both political parties have endeavored to pack the courts with sympathetic judges. The conservatives got the Supreme Court majority by pure luck.

The Democrats would have done the exact same if given the opportunity and then you’d have the Right crying about how the court is “invalid”.

To change this, we should require some kind of supermajority to confirm judicial appointments at all levels.

[__derek__]

> To change this, we should require some kind of supermajority to confirm judicial appointments at all levels.

That was the de facto situation until 2013 (until 2017 for the Supreme Court).[1] The Republican SCOTUS majority became entrenched when Mitch McConnell refused to allow the Senate to consider Merrick Garland in early 2016, though. That wasn't luck.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#2013:_Cloture_o...

[leereeves]

No, it wasn't luck, it was a consequence of the 2014 election, in which the Republicans won net 9 Senate seats.

[hn_version_0023]

I'm sorry, did you just compare Mitch McConnell block of Supreme Court appointments through Obama's terms to... luck?

That's about as disingenuous as it comes.

[ben0x539]

> The Democrats would have done the exact same if given the opportunity

What would the Democrats be doing if they had a supreme court majority? I don't really follow US politics that closely but I got the impression that the Democrats were mostly about not rocking the boat too much?

[JumpCrisscross]

> that might not be possible these days

You’re most likely making these claims in state courts. Federal cases start at $25k.

[hiatus]

Yeah this does not impact cases brought before state courts:

> Article III, § 2 of the U.S. Constitution limits federal court jurisdiction to cases and controversies. But the Supreme Court has held “the constraints of Article III do not apply to state courts, and accordingly the state courts are not bound by the limitations of a case or controversy or other federal rules of justiciability even when they address issues of federal law, as when they are called upon to interpret the Constitution or, in this case, a federal statute.” ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605, 617 (1989).

https://library.nclc.org/article/bringing-federal-consumer-c...

[jkaplowitz]

$75k if you mean the usual amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction, no? Anyway, the FDCPA specifically gives federal courts jurisdiction over FDCPA violations “regardless of the amount in controversy”, so there’s no minimum.

Still, the FDCPA jurisdiction provision is non-exclusive, meaning state courts also remain a viable option.

[jkaplowitz]

That ruling only applies to federal courts. FDCPA claims can be, and sometimes are, filed in state courts, which are allowed to be more permissive about standing rules (to the extent permitted by state constitutions and laws) than federal courts.

[mrguyorama]

And then two years later they take and rule on a case that was completely fabricated.

Awesome. Glad to know it's rules for thee and not for me

[lostlogin]

Isn’t the saying usually ‘rules for me and not for thee’?