Skip to main content

View Diary: Inexpert thoughts on today's Supreme Court arguments (72 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nowhere Man
    "Cases in law", of course, refers to criminal cases.

    "Cases in equity" refers to the right of an (allegedly) injured party to sue for relief from a party that is (allegedly) responsible for the injury.

    "Cases in law" refers to cases for money damages, "cases in equity" refers to cases in which some other relief (like an order to do something or stop doing something) is sought. In England and many systems based on it, they were separate courts for a long time.

    Republicans...think the American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire the Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it. Harry S. Truman

    by fenway49 on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 05:35:59 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, thanks (again) (0+ / 0-)

      It's been too long, and I should have done some research to refresh my memory. I think the point remains, though, that the Constitution restricts the Court's jurisdiction to cases where the petitioner seeks relief against an actual harm.

      Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

      by Nowhere Man on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 07:37:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It does (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Nowhere Man

        restrict it to cases with actual harm. Normally that standard applies to plaintiffs at the outset of litigation. The plaintiffs (challenging Prop 8) clearly had that.

        The issue of whether these proponents of the ballot initiative can defend the law when the state declines to do so is a more complicated question. If California had appealed, clearly there would be no standing problem. The substitution is the tricky part.

        Republicans...think the American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire the Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it. Harry S. Truman

        by fenway49 on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 08:29:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  To clarify (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Nowhere Man

        The substitution on appeal is the tricky part. If you say no standing, any state government that dislikes any law on its own books can make a decision striking down that law unreviewable, simply by refusing to appeal.

        Republicans...think the American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire the Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it. Harry S. Truman

        by fenway49 on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 08:32:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site