Roberts is an asshole who has repeated farted on the Constitution. Is is clearly NOT moot when it's reached the Supreme Court. You have one job! Determine is something is Constitutional. Yes or no. If you side with the censors, then you are setting the PRECEDENT, and then anybody else is free to censor speech. YOU, Mr. Roberts, are moot. Retire. Or be impeached.
Could this be a Rebellion on the Supreme Court and a Rebuke of Chief Justice Roberts?
In an 8-1 decision revolving around "Violation of Civil Rights" whereby two lower courts dismissed the lawsuit stating that even though the Rights were Violated by the Rules of a University that their Rule Change made the matter MOOT was overturned by the Supreme Court stating that (and I paraphrase) Just because you changed the Rules doesn't mean you're not guilty.
Chief Roberts' dissent wrote that the court was acting as “a moot court” because essentially that with the Universities removal of the Rules, THAT GOT ENFORCED (that's the big point btw) somehow makes it all better so HEY What's the Point of the Lawsuit then right?
It would be like having a rule stating that "Individuals in Group X could be prosecuted and punished without Trial" but then, after two people were punished, their families sued for Violation of their 4th and 5th Amendment Rights so the Authorities involved in the making of those Rules then CHANGED those rules by removing that part about taking them out and shooting them and then the Courts saying "Well, since that rule isn't in place anymore it's a MOOT POINT so you can't sue!" and Justice Roberts said pretty much the same damned thing and, Get This! ALL THE OTHER JUSTICES REBUKED HIS FUCKING ASS!!!!
This, to me, is a full on Rebellion in the Court. They just let him know that they're not going to play his game anymore and that he can get Fucked. Shit's about to get interesting. Let's stay tuned.
That's because he's so entrenched in beurocrat thinking he's ok with changing the rules after the fact or something being "moot" violating rules as long as no real harm happens. I guess we can call that the April Fool's Day approach to the law.
Justice Clarence Thomas authored the opinion of the court, agreeing with the students’ case.
“Applying this principle here is straightforward. For purposes of this appeal, it is undisputed that Uzuegbunam experienced a completed violation of his constitutional rights when respondents enforced their speech policies against him. Because ‘every violation [of a right] imports damage,’ Webb, 29 F. Cas., at 509, nominal damages can redress Uzuegbunam’s injury even if he cannot or chooses not to quantify that harm in economic terms,” Thomas concluded.
Roberts, however, in his first solo dissent, wrote that the court was acting as “a moot court” in deciding this case and their ruling.
“When plaintiffs like Uzuegbunam and Bradford allege neither actual damages nor the prospect of future injury, an award of
nominal damages does not change their status or condition at all. Such an award instead represents a judicial determination that the plaintiffs’ interpretation of the law is correct — nothing more,” Roberts stated.
Roberts is an asshole who has repeated farted on the Constitution. Is is clearly NOT moot when it's reached the Supreme Court. You have one job! Determine is something is Constitutional. Yes or no. If you side with the censors, then you are setting the PRECEDENT, and then anybody else is free to censor speech. YOU, Mr. Roberts, are moot. Retire. Or be impeached.
Could this be a Rebellion on the Supreme Court and a Rebuke of Chief Justice Roberts?
In an 8-1 decision revolving around "Violation of Civil Rights" whereby two lower courts dismissed the lawsuit stating that even though the Rights were Violated by the Rules of a University that their Rule Change made the matter MOOT was overturned by the Supreme Court stating that (and I paraphrase) Just because you changed the Rules doesn't mean you're not guilty.
Chief Roberts' dissent wrote that the court was acting as “a moot court” because essentially that with the Universities removal of the Rules, THAT GOT ENFORCED (that's the big point btw) somehow makes it all better so HEY What's the Point of the Lawsuit then right?
It would be like having a rule stating that "Individuals in Group X could be prosecuted and punished without Trial" but then, after two people were punished, their families sued for Violation of their 4th and 5th Amendment Rights so the Authorities involved in the making of those Rules then CHANGED those rules by removing that part about taking them out and shooting them and then the Courts saying "Well, since that rule isn't in place anymore it's a MOOT POINT so you can't sue!" and Justice Roberts said pretty much the same damned thing and, Get This! ALL THE OTHER JUSTICES REBUKED HIS FUCKING ASS!!!!
This, to me, is a full on Rebellion in the Court. They just let him know that they're not going to play his game anymore and that he can get Fucked. Shit's about to get interesting. Let's stay tuned.
That's because he's so entrenched in beurocrat thinking he's ok with changing the rules after the fact or something being "moot" violating rules as long as no real harm happens. I guess we can call that the April Fool's Day approach to the law.
Wow, even the Leftist judges. Roberts is a meme.
How about Trumps legal team(s) resubmit their cases now?
Some people did something. What's the big deal, it's moot now anyway.
Proof yet again everything to do with Bush jr. becoming dictator was tainted and should have been permanently barred from serving.
Do NOT be fooled!
SCOTUS will continue to fuck America. There is no rebellion. Roberts probably fucked one of their daughters, and they got pissed.
Wasn't it just today that they denied The Donald's WI writ of certiorari?