Да, читаю сейчас http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf - какие, всё-таки, Робертс и Скалиа лапочки: (emphases mine) The only individuals who sought to appeal that order were petitioners, who had intervened in the District Court. But the District Court had not ordered them to do or refrain from doing anything. To have standing, a litigant must seek relief for an injury that affects him in a “personal and individual way.” … Petitioners argue that the California Constitution and its election laws give them a “‘unique,’ ‘special,’ and ‘distinct’ role in the initiative process—one ‘involving both authority and responsibilities that differ from other supporters of the measure.’” … True enough—but only when it comes to the process of enacting the law. … But once Proposition 8 was approved by the voters, the measure became “a duly enacted constitutional amendment or statute.” … Petitioners have no role—special or otherwise—in the enforcement of Proposition 8. … Article III standing “is not to be placed in the hands of ‘concerned bystanders,’ who will use it simply as a ‘vehicle for the vindication of value interests.’”
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2013-06-26 05:10 pm (UTC)