Irony Is Laughing Its Ass Off

'Thin-skinned' John Roberts mocked by columnist for 'dishonest' ruling that ignored a word in the statutehttps://t.co/QdkpDcRTWF

— Raw Story (@RawStory) July 3, 2023

Turns out the Twitter obsession with the legal doctrine of standing was focused on the wrong case 

From the first page to the last, today’s opinion departs from the demands of judicial restraint," Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan wrote. 

"The author of today's opinion once wrote that a 1970s-era standing decision 'became emblematic' of 'how utterly manipulable' this Court's standing law is 'if not taken seriously as a matter of judicial self-restraint,'" Kagan continued, referring to Roberts in her dissent. "After today, no one will have to go back 50 years for the classic case of the Court manipulating standing doctrine, rather than obeying the edict to stay in its lane." 

She went on to say that whether the executive branch overstepped its bounds "does not license this Court to exceed its own role." 

"Courts must still 'function as courts,' this one no less than others," she continued. "And in our system, that means refusing to decide cases that are not really cases because the plaintiffs have not suffered concrete injuries."

Which, among other things, proves the justices are perfectly capable of describing a standing issue when it arises. Which should be a lesson to the legal brain trust of Twitter, and the lawyers who make a living having something to say on TeeVee, even when they don’t know what they’re talking about (Neal Katyal is damaged goods IMHLO).

I may disagree with the legal reasoning and how the majority reaches its conclusions (especially in this case; read the rest of the article), but the Justices do know the legal issues of the cases before them better than the Monday morning quarterbacks who can’t even be bothered to read the opinions.

I think the Twitterati missed this because it wasn’t pre-explained (badly, wrongly) in a magazine article. But here is the standing case they are looking for.

Funny they can’t understand that.