It’s actually worse than you’ve explained. The supposed customer was recently Interviewed by the New Republic and turns out that he had no idea he’d been named in this lawsuit and wasn’t even gay. He is a progressive and not happy about the situation and perplexed as to why, during the pendency of this action, no other reporter ever contacted him. Essentially, in legal terms, there was no justiciable controversy here - a foundational standard that has always been a requirement before this SCOTUS came upon us. I’m not a SCOTUS expert but I understand there is a rehearing procedure. Perhaps someone will step up to the plate - Colorado AG? ACLU? LAMBDA Legal Defense?
You’re my fave. Xoxo
How is this justifiable? The "aggrieved" person didn't having standing if not "harmed".
It’s actually worse than you’ve explained. The supposed customer was recently Interviewed by the New Republic and turns out that he had no idea he’d been named in this lawsuit and wasn’t even gay. He is a progressive and not happy about the situation and perplexed as to why, during the pendency of this action, no other reporter ever contacted him. Essentially, in legal terms, there was no justiciable controversy here - a foundational standard that has always been a requirement before this SCOTUS came upon us. I’m not a SCOTUS expert but I understand there is a rehearing procedure. Perhaps someone will step up to the plate - Colorado AG? ACLU? LAMBDA Legal Defense?
The window is within 25 days of the ruling. Curious to see what happens.