Justice Kavanaugh

[Firefly]

Lol why you all hedge your bets on career politicians and then get up in your feelings when they act like politicians?

[glocktogo]

He said in his hearings that he was going to vote according to his interpretation of the law rather than a particular ideology. No one believed him?

But, but, POLITICS!!!

[sundance435]

That POS sided with the libs today against Apple!

Right, poor Apple. Insert diatribe about free markets here.

It's actually good to see a Justice actually hearing the merits on a case rather than automatically taking the party line all the time.

Weird, I know. I wish our side would stake out the high ground on this instead of getting breathless just like the SJWs. I'm probably biased, but the merits are usually on our side, if you're a Constitutionalist.

[Sam]

I have no problem with his stance on that issue.

[platoonDaddy]

I enjoyed Rush's comment:

“I think it’s classic,” he continued. “I’m wild-guessing. I don’t know. I’ve never met Kavanaugh. I’ve not really talked to anybody about this. I’m wild-guessing. This just strikes me as so typical — ‘I’m going to show them they were wrong. I’m going to show them they were wrong. I’m going to show them I can be fair.’ And the way you show a liberal you can be fair is agree with them.”

[jpmuscle]

The key is did they have “standing” & they didn’t. The ruling today gave them “standing”, he went against case law & sided with the 9th circuit.

Well if they always followed case the 2A is inevitably screwed so idk




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[26 Inf]

The key is did they have “standing” & they didn’t. The ruling today gave them “standing”, he went against case law & sided with the 9th circuit.

From what I read Apple's logic was flawed. They is essence said that only the app developers have a right to sue because of the fact that Apple only makes the apps available through it's app store and that Apple only provides 'a' marketplace for the apps. Since they provide the only marketplace that argument don't hunt. Anyone affected by Apples conduct in fixing prices has standing to bring suit.

Federal rules for standing: In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (90-1424), 504 U.S. 555 (1992), the Supreme Court created a three-part test to determine whether a party has standing to sue:

1) The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact," meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent;

2) There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court;

3) It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury.

If you are interested: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/l...federal-court/

BTW: this doesn't mean Apple lost, it merely means that the plaintiffs can continue the suit.