Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

ancianita

(41,375 posts)

6. I'll take your considered word for it. I just thought that the original court decided standing, and that the appellate

Reply to Igel (Reply #5)

Thu Jul 17, 2025, 08:14 PM

Jul 17

deemed that the rules of procedure that required deeper study on standing by the original court weren't done, and so set aside the original court's ruling or the plaintiffs' standing on that basis. IDK

As a non-lawyer I admit to not knowing how indigenous nations' -- often declaring themselves as "nations" -- standing works in our court systems.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court justice pauses ruling weakening Voting Rights Act [View all] BumRushDaShow Jul 16 OP

So what does Kavanaugh's "pause" on an appeals court ruling actually tell us. ancianita Jul 16 #1

That the DOJ can force texas to redistrict? SSJVegeta Jul 16 #2

My initial thought was that he was following the law and rules of procedure. TomSlick Jul 16 #3

I think it's the appellate courts that decide on whether rules of procedure have been followed. It's not outside ancianita Jul 16 #4

But the appellate court ruled that individuals lack standing to challenge claimed violations of the VRA. Igel Jul 17 #5

I'll take your considered word for it. I just thought that the original court decided standing, and that the appellate ancianita Jul 17 #6