Skip to main content

View Diary: Supreme Court Deals Blow To GOP Suppression Tactic (111 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Here's the opinion -- and it's not abut standing. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LB in NC

    It's a case about whether there is a private right of action to enforce the federal statute at issue.  

    Here's the opinion.

    This is an important distinction.  If it were just about standing, then presumably the state GOP could find someone who has standing, and get that person to bring the case before the election and get a TRO.  

    But since it seems to be about whether a private right of action exists, then there is no private person who can bring the case the GOP is almost certainly out of luck on this entire approach -- in any of the 50 states.  Not just Ohio.

    "Terror is nothing other than justice...; it is ... the general principle of democracy applied to our country's most urgent needs." M. Robespierre

    by Bartimaeus Blue on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 12:53:50 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Or rather (0+ / 0-)

      It is doubtful that a private right of action exists, and the SCOTUS has ruled out getting a TRO on this point before the election.  

      "Terror is nothing other than justice...; it is ... the general principle of democracy applied to our country's most urgent needs." M. Robespierre

      by Bartimaeus Blue on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 12:59:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Huh? Private right of action IS standing (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dexter

      Um, what are you talking?  Whether a law creates a private right of action is a question of standing, i.e. whether a party has the right to be heard in the court in the first place.  So no, this decision WAS about standing.

      And the law does spell out who can sue to enforce it: the Atorney General of the United States.  So maybe the Ohio GOP can get the DOJ to sue Ohio before the election and cause the biggest legal election clusterfuck since Gore v. Bush.  I doubt it.

      •  See below: (0+ / 0-)

        The fact that the law spells out who may enforce it makes this a classic question of whether there is an implied right of action, not standing.

        You're confusing the issues.  

        "Terror is nothing other than justice...; it is ... the general principle of democracy applied to our country's most urgent needs." M. Robespierre

        by Bartimaeus Blue on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 02:52:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  that means no one except state has standing (0+ / 0-)

      I read the per curiam  - the law allows no one except the state to act.  Therefore no one else has standing.

      do we still have a Republic and a Constitution if our elected officials will not stand up for them on our behalf?

      by teacherken on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 04:13:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site