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,” nominal damages can redress Uzuegbunam’s injury even if he cannot or chooses not to quantify that harm in economic terms.*
Roberts essentially tries to make the case that because the college reversed their policy (long after the fact) then there was no harm and the plaintiffs had no standing...
If that sounds familiar then you might have been paying attention the last couple months...
Important revelation: a violation of a right is enough to give standing... such as our right to vote?
Why didn't he just vote with the majority of he knew it was going to be only him voting against? Part of the movie? Make it as fucking obvious as possible? Well done!
Yes, I read it. He tries to make the argument that the case was moot when the College reversed its Policies that originally caused Harm.
He supported his opinion, in large part, by insisting the court has no responsibility to rule on the case because "nominal damages" are too small for such a high court.
Nominal Damages are requested in court to support the fact that 1) harm occurred and 2) can be fixed (in whole or part) by the defendant if they pay.
Roberts refuses to acknowledge "Nominal Damages" as real damage and therefore decided this case is moot.
Most important statement in the opinion:
Roberts essentially tries to make the case that because the college reversed their policy (long after the fact) then there was no harm and the plaintiffs had no standing...
If that sounds familiar then you might have been paying attention the last couple months...
Important revelation: a violation of a right is enough to give standing... such as our right to vote?
Why didn't he just vote with the majority of he knew it was going to be only him voting against? Part of the movie? Make it as fucking obvious as possible? Well done!
That’s what I think.
Sounds like he crossed over to the dark side. Why wouldn’t he err on the side of free speech?
Hell of a movie.
John Roberts acquired his two adopted children from Jeffrey Epstein and is also logged on the Lolita Express.
did he write a dissent and did you read it? how can you say his motivation was wrong without knowing the reasoning merely based on the vote count?
His dissent was bullshit. Read Clarence Thomas majority opinion.
Yes, I read it. He tries to make the argument that the case was moot when the College reversed its Policies that originally caused Harm.
He supported his opinion, in large part, by insisting the court has no responsibility to rule on the case because "nominal damages" are too small for such a high court.
Nominal Damages are requested in court to support the fact that 1) harm occurred and 2) can be fixed (in whole or part) by the defendant if they pay.
Roberts refuses to acknowledge "Nominal Damages" as real damage and therefore decided this case is moot.