This challenge to gay marriage is brought by known hypocritical piece of garbage, Kim Davis.
The Supreme Court has said a lot lately about *standing* to bring a suit before them. In order to have standing, the complainant must:
Have a real injury, in the legal sense. They must have suffered some real harm (not speculative harm or just a general grievance) as a result of the thing they’re challenging. Kim Davis lost her job and became a national pariah, not because of the right for gays to marry, but because she refused to do her government job and used her power to discriminate against specific people. She has not, in any realistic sense, suffered harm beyond the obvious consequences of her own actions.
Have a direct causal link between the injury suffered and the accused party, harmful law, etc. Again, Kim Davis suffered social and professional harm because of her own actions. The right for gay people to marry *did not* hurt her, her reaction to that right did.
It must be likely that, if the court decides in their favor, it will help mitigate the harm caused. One more time, Kim Davis was *not* injured by the law. How would gays not being able to get married help her in any way? She could potentially sue the government for firing her, but that creates a precedent that the government can’t fire someone for disobeying the law and refusing a citizen their rights. Even if gay marriage is overturned, it was a legal right when she did it, so she broke the law either way.
All the people who have ever been turned away from the SC for ‘not having standing to bring the case’ should sue the government for unequal application of the right to redress grievances.
2 Comments
Fuck this conservative biased supreme court
This challenge to gay marriage is brought by known hypocritical piece of garbage, Kim Davis.
The Supreme Court has said a lot lately about *standing* to bring a suit before them. In order to have standing, the complainant must:
Have a real injury, in the legal sense. They must have suffered some real harm (not speculative harm or just a general grievance) as a result of the thing they’re challenging. Kim Davis lost her job and became a national pariah, not because of the right for gays to marry, but because she refused to do her government job and used her power to discriminate against specific people. She has not, in any realistic sense, suffered harm beyond the obvious consequences of her own actions.
Have a direct causal link between the injury suffered and the accused party, harmful law, etc. Again, Kim Davis suffered social and professional harm because of her own actions. The right for gay people to marry *did not* hurt her, her reaction to that right did.
It must be likely that, if the court decides in their favor, it will help mitigate the harm caused. One more time, Kim Davis was *not* injured by the law. How would gays not being able to get married help her in any way? She could potentially sue the government for firing her, but that creates a precedent that the government can’t fire someone for disobeying the law and refusing a citizen their rights. Even if gay marriage is overturned, it was a legal right when she did it, so she broke the law either way.
All the people who have ever been turned away from the SC for ‘not having standing to bring the case’ should sue the government for unequal application of the right to redress grievances.