JSA wrote:
SH wrote:
JSA wrote:
I think it is more likely that SCOTUS punts the case, kicking it on the basis the two plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the suit, thus not having to address the substantive issues of the case.
Is "lacking standing" the same argument as patentattorney's when he said the plaintiffs weren't harmed?
Pretty much, yes. To have standing, you have to show harm or potential harm. For example, just because you are a taxpayer, you do not have standing to sue the government for spending tax dollars in a certain way.
The judge in this case said the plaintiffs had standing because they were “forced” to buy health insurance. Well, arguably that is not true. Sure, the law said they had to buy health insurance, but there is no penalty for failing to do so. If there is no penalty, how were they “forced” to buy health insurance? If they were not “forced” to do anything, how do they have standing?
Why do you hate all the winning?
How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?