Re the Colorado case. I thought "Stewart" was the only claim to standing that the plaintiffs had. So why doesn't the revelation that he isn't gay and hadn't wanted a wedding website eliminate the plaintiff's right to sue and therefore provide grounds for a rehearing? Adam Liptak didn't address this. JT
Re the Colorado case. I thought "Stewart" was the only claim to standing that the plaintiffs had. So why doesn't the revelation that he isn't gay and hadn't wanted a wedding website eliminate the plaintiff's right to sue and therefore provide grounds for a rehearing? Adam Liptak didn't address this. JT
Re the Colorado case. I thought "Stewart" was the only claim to standing that the plaintiffs had. So why doesn't the revelation that he isn't gay and hadn't wanted a wedding website eliminate the plaintiff's right to sue and therefore provide grounds for a rehearing? Adam Liptak didn't address this. JT
Right, that's the error the coverage is making. Stewart wasn't the grounds for standing. The court found standing for other (bad) reasons.
David, this case was in the works since 2016. It had no
standing then, or now, no matter who was financing this woman. 7 years in the
pike to SCOTUS? How many
of the new conservative justices were in SCOTUS in
2016? 2018?