His win is a direct result of the Supreme Court’s decision in a pivotal LGBTQ+ rights case.

  • cricket98@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    ? All I’m saying is that immediate harm is not required for a lawsuit. I know you think you’re being smart but you’re overanalyzing what I said for no reason.

    • njm1314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, not at all. Immediate harm was never the criteria we were discussing. It was any harm. It’s always been legal to argue that you have a reasonable suspicion that a law will affect you personally. Even if it has yet to do so. That can be argued in a court of law. That is not what I’m objecting to at all

      What I’m objecting to is the current practice in conservative legal thought process where you can sue when you have no reasonable expectation that it will affect you personally. We’ve seen that all over conservative legal arguments lately.