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

  • @cricket98
    link
    11 year ago

    How is that “completely different”

    • @njm1314
      link
      01 year ago

      Why did you use the word “yet”?

      • @cricket98
        link
        11 year ago

        because you are allowed to challenge laws even if they have yet to affect your life

        • @njm1314
          link
          01 year ago

          Again, why are you using the word yet? Think about it. When you have you’ll understand the difference.

          • @cricket98
            link
            01 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
              link
              01 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.