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.
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.