To: Coronal
I am becoming more and more frustrated with the “no standing” dodge by the courts. I am thinking that all “no standing” decisions should be accompanied by a statement that defines who DOES have standing.
2 posted on
01/19/2016 12:38:46 PM PST by
taxcontrol
( The GOPe treats the conservative base like slaves by taking their votes and refuses to pay)
To: taxcontrol
gay couples wanting to marry did not have standing... they were always free to marry ...
3 posted on
01/19/2016 12:41:31 PM PST by
teeman8r
(Armageddon won't be pretty, but it's not like it's the end of the world.)
To: taxcontrol
Think positive. Justice Roberts won’t be blackmailed into voting against conservatives if they don’t hear the case.
5 posted on
01/19/2016 12:42:17 PM PST by
grania
To: taxcontrol
It is pretty amazing how the highest court in the land is becoming more and more political as time goes by.
8 posted on
01/19/2016 12:44:32 PM PST by
biff
To: taxcontrol
My question is.. how in the hell can the SCOTUS claim Arpaio doesn’t have standing, when it’s on him to police up all that illegal scum in Maricopa County? Of course he has standing!
10 posted on
01/19/2016 1:09:15 PM PST by
ScottinVA
(If you're not enraged...why?)
To: taxcontrol
18 posted on
01/20/2016 4:44:26 AM PST by
NonValueAdded
(In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth Is a Revolutionary Act)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson